With the elevation of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, there was much speculation as to the policies he would institute in Rome and in the Catholic Faith; after all, Pope John Paul II was a hard act to follow, as they say. Pope John Paul II was known by both the popular media and the left leaning liberal Catholics as a “conservative” and many felt threatened that he would bring the Church back into the, so-called Dark Ages. On his death this pope was hailed as a forward thinker who initiated the New Evangelization, which was essentially Ecumenism 2.0. Under his watch the Spirit of Vatican II came to fruition as intended by the Council Fathers. With the election of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, many now felt not only threatened but also, based on his previous actions as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, foresaw the undoing of all the Council reforms and everything since that the interpreters had wrongly usurped and implemented from the intent of the bishops involved. Pope Benedict XVI was regarded as an archaic minded ogre who would forcefully manhandle the Church back to an abhorred traditional Catholic Faith, a Faith hated by the Modernists who worked so hard to make the Church so anthropomorphic, that is, man-centered rather than Christ-centered. In other words, their intention was to replace the Social Reign of Christ the King with the Reign of Man
Speculations ran from a complete abrogation of Vatican Council II, to a chucking of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, otherwise known as the New Mass. Needless to say this unfortunately did not happen. In fact, the pundits of the day, both secular and religious, were wrong on many levels as both Pope John Paul II, now referred to as Blessed, and Pope Benedict XVI turned out to be liberal Catholics, if not, material Modernists much to the chagrin of those of traditional Catholic practice and belief. Following the New Mass of Paul VI, under the watches of both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI the NewChurch reached its zenith. Between these two popes we saw New Sacraments, a New Code of Canon Law, a New Catechism, a New Evangelization and every other new innovation they could possibly think of. While the Second Vatican Council razed the structure of the Church, the post-conciliar popes raised a NewChurch under the alleged “conservative” reigns of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. These monikers of “conservative” were by design to fool the true conservatives within the Novus Ordo, both prelate and lay alike, and lull them into a false sense of security all the while slowly turning up the heat of Modernism under the boiling frog.
At the time of his elevation, one of the speculations about Benedict XVI was that he would introduce a “hybrid” Mass, that is, a combination of the “best” of the Tridentine along with the “best” of the Mass of Paul VI. Most, both Modernists and traditional Catholics scoffed at this idea as it would just introduce a new rite, while those married to either of the former would continue as before. In retrospect, we can see, however, this is exactly what is happening. With some of the changes of the New Mass, such as the priest facing east, the request for receiving Communion on the tongue; the so-called release of the Latin Mass, we are headed toward that hybrid given short shrift by the pundits of the day. What is beyond belief is the fact that such a new liturgical structure is not just coming from the NewChurch, which is to be expected, but also with the collaboration of some in the traditional movement.
With the apparent demise of the ill-timed talks between Rome and the SSPX, this writer has on more than one occasion called for reconciliation within the Society of St. Pius X; a reconsolidation of the traditional movement, of which, the SSPX is the backbone in order that we might once again stand monolithically solid against Modernism within the Church. Seemingly this has been the voice of one crying in the wilderness, as neither reconciliation nor forgiveness is being exhibited. In fact, once again through leaked internal documents matters stand as if negotiations are still ongoing with Rome. A letter from the District Superior of the SSPX’s Asia District has been revealed, via the internet, which is the second monition against Fr. Francois Chazal. Fr. Chazal’s response was also revealed defending his position and asking for a fair hearing.
While this is an internal matter, and certainly any organization has a right to maintain discipline within its ranks, I believe that this leaked document, and all others going back these number of months are not accidental but are strategically revealed in order to either elicit a response from a target audience or intentionally indicate the direction to which the matters is heading. In the case of these latest leaks regarding Fr. Chazal it is noteworthy to see that the basis of the SSPX disciplinary stand is based not only on the Code of Canon Law of 1917 but also the New Code of Canon Law of 1983, a code that has in the past been so vehemently fought against by the SSPX over these last nearly fifty years. Perhaps this second monition was meant for more than the intended Fr. Chazal? While I’m reluctant to engage in speculation, I believe the reference to the New Code of Canon Law raises many questions in my mind, and in order to once again restore confidence in the faithful who adhere to the traditional Catholic Faith I call on all parties to reconcile without condition and resume once again the stance of an anchor of Faith in a troubled Church and a troubled world. The ramifications of our actions in the recent past and our steps in the near future are wide ranging and beyond measure. Our adherence to the traditional Faith is crucial to the future of our children. For their sake alone we need to resume our witness against the forces of Modernism within the Church and the World.
Here is the web citation containing the subject letter and the response of Fr. Chazal:
Please, please continue the Rosary for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary she is our only recourse.
Richard of Danbury, D.S.G.