Why the Suppression of Ecclesia Dei Helps the Ralliement


From “Joseph” on the French Resistance Forum here:


"To answer S. Johnson’s question, the abolition of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (CED) will “serve mainly to finalize the rallying of the FSSPX” to conciliar Rome for the following reasons (there may be others):

1 - This request for suppression came from the Fraternity itself, which was upset to see itself placed alongside the “rallies” FSSP, IBP, Christ-Roi, Campos and other institutes, within this body originally conceived as the receptacle for the “defectors” of 1988. Admittedly, these communities depended on the said Commission for canonical supervision, while the Fraternity only used it in the context of its periodic contacts with the Vatican; nevertheless, it was not a comfortable position for it.

Having satisfied itself on this point, the FSSPX can only be “well disposed” towards the Roman authority.

2 - The removal of the Ecclesia Dei screen therefore now places the FSSPX in direct contact with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), whose Prefect, Cardinal Ladaria, becomes its normal interlocutor, in place of the Secretary of the CED, Mgr Pozzo.

We are always flattered to be closer to the top, in the Church as elsewhere. This is another reason for FSSPX satisfaction and another incentive to be “well disposed”.

3 - In addition, the integration of all the former Ecclesia Dei communities into a special section of the CDF should facilitate the processing of their respective files in accordance with the evolution of the Fraternity’s own file. It is likely that the Pope would like to harmonize, perhaps even group together, the various existing structures of the traditional movement. But whatever the status of each of these structures in a global reform, it is not impossible that concessions and adjustments may be required from each other. On the disciplinary and especially doctrinal level, one can imagine the delicate position of the FSSPX in case it finds itself involved in a reflection of this type: there are great risks for the maintenance of its historical fidelity.

4 - More importantly, this abolition of the CED allows the FSSPX to claim that it will finally enter into contact with the highest authorities of the Church on the doctrinal subject, which is its main claim, it seems, according to what has been insisted upon since the change of the management team last July (see also the FSSPX-News communiqué dated 19 January 2019).

So it would now be an exchange at the “power to power” level!

But in this fight with the Roman “foxes”, the “peacock” Menzingen risks losing a lot of feathers! Because the conception of doctrinal dialogue is not at all the same on either side of the negotiating table where we are about to sit…

Is it seriously imagined that through courteous exchanges between learned theologians (cf. the failure of the 2009-2011 conversations), we will obtain from Rome the solemn condemnation of conciliar errors and its return to the traditional magisterium of the Church on faith and morals, the repeal of the heterodox provisions of the 1983 Code, and why not the “decanonization” of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II?.. whereas the present Pope, in perfect harmony with his predecessor, envisages “doctrinal discussions” with the Fraternity only with the aim of facilitating for the disciples of Bishop Lefebvre “the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes” (letter of Benedict XVI dated 12 March 2009)?

And in such a dialogue of the deaf, how do we intend to ensure the synthesis “of the religion of Saint Pius X or Bishop Lefebvre with that of Pope Francis and the Second Vatican Council, that of Cardinal Pius or Cardinal Ottaviani with that of Cardinals Kasper, Marx, and Shönborn”? (Reconquista, November 17, 2018).

5 - Faced with this radical impossibility of reaching a merely Catholic doctrinal convergence, no more than with the “full communion” mentioned in the Roman communiqué of 23 September 2014, the Fraternity finds itself trapped: without acknowledging the errors of its past government, it can only logically resign itself to pursuing the path set out in the path of “normalisation” which would ensure its “regular” place in the conciliar Church and a “secure pastoral space” where it hopes to enjoy satisfactory doctrinal freedom… and guaranteed by Rome!

An alternative formula could also suit Pope Francis, pragmatic as we know him: maintaining the current status quo, accompanied by a definitive reduction of the FSSPX to silence, by its self-censorship on the disorders of the Church: each at home, the tradis with the tradis, and the conciliarists free to continue in their apostasy!

These hypotheses are in line with the General House’s clearly stated desire not to question the jurisdiction over the sacraments received from the Pope “in pieces” since 2015, and with its concern to resume dialogue with Rome at the level of so-called doctrinal discussions, now within the CDF.

But this is a “deadly process”, as Fr. de Cacqueray already said in 2014; one that makes it possible to predict the rallying of the Society (whether legal or only de facto), and its final ruin, dear Sean !

We wanted to survive by abandoning the wise maxim of the 2006 Chapter “no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement”, and here we are twelve years later, through the action of Bishop Fellay!

At the same time, the FSSPX relies on the development of its works (seminaries, places of worship, pilgrimages, congresses and events…) and on its traditional image to attract crowds and convince the whole world that it alone “can help the Church” to recover!

By presumption, it makes a fatal mistake, forgetting that its first duty as “champion of doctrine” is not to enter into endless palaver with its enemies, but rather to protest publicly against apostasy, and to demand, in the name of faith, Rome’s return to its two thousand year old tradition! Once this is done, God will take care of the rest…

In Antioch, Saint Paul “resisted” the Prince of the Apostles “because he was reprehensible”, as “those who did not walk upright according to the truth of the Gospel”. In the account of Gal. 2:11-14, there is no trace of “discussions”, only Paul’s voice is heard: “I say publicly to Cephas…”!

Do not protest loudly against the increasingly serious abuses of the Roman Magisterium, moderate the tone of its communication to the point of declaring itself just “perplexed” to see Paul VI among the “saints”, receive canonical “facilities” from Pope Francis and express thanks to him for them, refrain from courageous acts in imitation of its founder in the face of conciliar Rome, to consider manifest and tenacious heretics as frequent interlocutors with whom one will “discuss doctrine”,… it is to place oneself on the enemy’s territory, it is to risk getting caught in his traps, it is to resign oneself to suffering his law, it is ultimately to grant him victory!

This is how the Fraternity of Saint Pius X goes thirty years after the consecrations…

Dear Sean, may we be mistaken!"


No, Joseph, you are absolutely NOT mistaken.

You have seen the reality of the situation exactly as it is.

Very well done!