USA – FSSP Priest Wages War Against SSPX: Laity to Clergy… We Just Want the Mass – Help! Please!
The priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) of St. Joan of Arc in Post Falls, Idaho, announced in their parish bulletin today that Fr. Josef Bisig, the rector of the Fraternity’s seminary in Nebraska, will be arriving in our town to give a talk on Saturday, April 29. For those who are unfamiliar with Fr. Bisig, he is one of the founders of the FSSP, having left the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) a couple of days after Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops on 30 June 1988.
For those of our readers who are unaware of the events that led to the episcopal consecrations 35 years ago, there are ample sources and countless analyses1 and books2 that provide a description of the unfortunate disingenuous attitude of the Vatican with respect to the “regularization” of the SSPX in late 1987 and early 1988. In fact, just yesterday, Lifesite News reported that a new comprehensive study of the lead-up to the rupture between the SSPX and the Vatican has been published in the last few days. The book, SSPX: The Defence, by author Kennedy Hall, is available on Amazon.
Most significantly, the foreword to Mr. Hall’s book was written by Father Charles Murr, the former personal secretary to Cardinal Edouard Gagnon. Fr. Murr was privy to the behind-the-scenes Vatican politics that shelved Cardinal Gagnon’s glowing report to Pope John Paul II after that cardinal’s apostolic visit to various houses of the SSPX in late 1987. Cardinal Gagnon’s report collected dust for several months before the ill-fated May 5 protocol, which was repudiated by Archbishop Lefebvre only after the Vatican issued an “oh, by the way” requirement for an apology “for offenses against the person of the Holy Father”. As Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard (who was there) later told us, this demand was made after the document was signed and the Archbishop had already departed the Vatican for the SSPX’s district house in Albano Laziale, about 20 miles away.
Dear readers, please allow us a digression for full disclosure: we have never made any attempt to conceal the fact that we fulfill our Sunday Mass obligations at both St. Joan of Arc and at the SSPX’s Immaculate Conception Church. Our intent is to show that both Masses are valid; but having known Monseigneur Lefebvre personally (and recognizing the great debt that we all owe to him), we have always kept a great devotion to this saintly prelate in our hearts. We were present at the consecrations in June of 1988 and fully supported the Archbishop’s decision and reasoning — as we still do. It has been from the SSPX that we have sought the Sacraments for most of the last four decades, and to which we are most grateful for making available the Mass and Sacraments to us and our children, especially in the 80s, when it was most difficult to find a traditional chapel. As we have told our FSSP priests when we have hosted them in our home for dinner, we believe that it is patently obvious that if it had not been for the courageous Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, we would not have the traditional Mass and Sacraments today — including those “approved” by Rome.
Sadly, the priests of the FSSP continue to wage war against the SSPX, from which, for years now, we have not heard any negative comments regarding the Fraternity of St. Peter from the pulpit at Immaculate Conception Church. In contrast, the Fraternity priests, on at least a few occasions over the last several years, have continued their criticism of the SSPX from the pulpit, as well as in their bulletin. Most recently, in January of this year, there was a major propaganda push to promote John Salza’s position against the Society — which he used to support. Brandishing the same old accusations of “schism” and “irregular status,” the axe-grinding Mr. Salza has been extensively quoted by the local priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter.
The biggest practical problem with the FSSP’s criticism of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is that there are numerous families in the area whose members are split between the two groups of faithful. This has driven unnecessary wedges into families and caused significant stress to intra-familial relations. Which brings us to the question we posed: why bring Fr. Bisig, known for his vitriol against the SSPX, to Post Falls now? Is it, perhaps, the foreknowledge of the release of Kennedy Hall’s book (which we have not yet read) that prompted Fr. Bisig to visit what is one of the largest, if not the largest, of the FSSP chapels in the U.S.?
The announcement of Father’s visit included some of the topics on which he will be speaking, among which are his “first-hand account” of his “dealings” with the previous two popes, as well as the foundation of the FSSP. The announcement goes on to state: “As a longtime council member of the SSPX, and close advisor to Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Bisig has a very important perspective of these decades that will surely include details that you have never heard before.” That description was enough to make us cringe, remembering Fr. Bisig’s anecdotal reminiscence in a now-deleted YouTube video in which he accused Archbishop Lefebvre of being a closet sedevacantist.
Then there was Fr. Bisig’s talk in Ottawa, Canada, on November 24, 2018, at which time he discussed the founding of the FSSP. Louis Verrecchio, on his blog AKA Catholic, quoted from the erstwhile Catholic Register newspaper of Canada: “It was clear we had to leave the Society because of this rupture with Rome,” said Bisig, one of 12 priests, one deacon and 20 seminarians who left. “We did not want to leave the SSPX,” [Fr. Bisig] said. “We were forced to do so. Our superior became schismatic. We felt like orphans abandoned by our father.” For more cringeworthy assertions from the rector of the Fraternity’s seminary, read Mr. Verrecchio’s full analysis.
But the most puzzling aspect of the Fraternity’s persistent sniping at the SSPX is that those of us who are described as “traditionalists” are being brutally persecuted by the man who holds the office of the Vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter. At a time when the traditional Mass of the Ages is under crushing attack from Rome, why does the FSSP insist on keeping up the “circular firing squad” against other like-minded Catholics? This is the real crux of this article. Why bring Fr. Bisig here to Post Falls, just a few miles from the second largest SSPX chapel in the nation, to give a talk in which he will certainly criticize Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society? Why highlight differences between the two priestly orders, when these tradition-minded priests should be working together to fend off the attacks of Francis against the Mass of the Ages? Shouldn’t we be allied against the malevolent forces in Rome that seek to obliterate the Mass and Sacraments of our ancestors? It just doesn’t make sense to us. It is a mystery.
In view of all of the above, we have some questions for Fr. Bisig. Perhaps someone will be good enough to pass these on to him ahead of his talk on Saturday evening, April 29, at 6 pm at St. Joan of Arc in Post Falls, Idaho (just in case we can’t make it to ask these questions ourselves):
— To the best of your knowledge, has Protocol 1411/99, the Vatican edict that allows any FSSP priest to say the Novus Ordo mass (and even encourages concelebration with local ordinaries) ever been rescinded?
— As a trusted advisor to Archbishop Lefebvre, when did you let him know of your intention to leave the SSPX?
— Did you contact the Vatican regarding your crisis of conscience over the consecrations prior to June 30, 1988?
— Weren’t you present at the priestly ordinations of June 29, 1988 and even at the consecrations on June 30, 1988?
— Despite last year’s assurance from Rome that Traditionis Custodes does not apply to the Fraternity, numerous FSSP chapels have been closed by their local ordinaries. Are these being appealed?
— What response do you foresee from the FSSP if Rome moves to make the much anticipated final assault on the Traditional Latin Mass and reneges on its promise to the Fraternity?
We ask these questions in a spirit of true Christian Charity, not just to clarify points that have remained ambiguous over the years, but in order to show that instead of persisting in criticism, we are stronger to defend against the evil forces arrayed against us in Rome if we stand together. The authorities in the Vatican are using the ages-old strategy of “divide and conquer”. Let us not fall into their trap.
- One of the best articles on the situation in the immediate aftermath of the consecrations is The Glass Confessional by Dr. John Senior.
- Two excellent books on the entire history of the relations between Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome are: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican and Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. Source – Tradidi Quod et Accepi…
Editor writes…
Tony and Vickie Ambrosetti, administrators of the Tradidi Quod et Accepi blog, are a heck of a lot kinder to Fr. Josef Bisig than “the spirit” is moving me… The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is not perfect, as I’ve said many times, but it’s not schismatic. Individual priests and people? Yes, sadly, that is sometimes the case, but for Fr Bisig to make a point of attacking the Society at the very time when Papa Francis is doing his utmost to make it impossible for us to attend the traditional Mass, is disgraceful – and then some.
I would be similarly annoyed (to put it mildly) if the SSPX clergy were unduly criticising the Summorum Pontificum (SP) priests. We need as many priests as possible learning to offer the ancient Mass – correctly, I must add – as well as being assisted by servers who understand the importance of their role and who focus on that instead of staring out at the congregation and engaging in other distracting behaviours. I’m afraid I must admit that where I now attend Mass (one of the SP parishes) most of the servers haven’t a clue, and the rubrics are, as in novus-ordo land, a tad flexible. There is no question about it, the SSPX and their superb servers are the “professionals” when it comes to the Liturgy.
So, let’s pray for Fr Bisig and any other priest(s) who – whether misguidedly or maliciously – are impeding the growth of what is now euphemistically known as “the traditional movement”, by which we really mean the restoration of the traditional Catholic Faith and Liturgy. We want the traditional Catholic religion restored – we’re fed up with pop-priests, priests taking centre-stage and treating the rubrics of the Mass like their own personal game-plan.
I suspect that many of you priests, Reverend Fathers, had these words of St John the Baptist printed on your ordination cards: “He must increase but I must decrease.” John 3:30-31 – Let’s see it put into practice. Immediately, if not sooner. Please and thank you. And remember to pray for Father Let’s resurrect that old “schism” thingy Bisig. Without delay…
Your thoughts…
Comments (27)
Why bring Fr. Bisig here to Post Falls, just a few miles from the second largest SSPX chapel in the nation, to give a talk in which he will certainly criticize Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society?
I sense a lot of jealousy among priests who are vying for congregations for the old rite. I sense it in the SP parishes that I’ve attended (but I’ve not been to them all) and I definitely see it in these SSPX and FSSP clerics. The SSPX in particular seems to think that everyone should attend their chapels and if they don’t they are not quite the real mckay. It’s all very childish IMO.
This Fr Bisig is behaving very oddly, if he’s still alleging schism after all these years. Maybe deep down he’s sorry he left the Society?
‘As Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard (who was there) later told us, this demand was made after the document was signed and the Archbishop had already departed the Vatican for the SSPX’s district house in Albano Laziale, about 20 miles away.’
Maybe, although this is the first time I have read this version of the events. But it would be very strange indeed for Archbishop Lefebvre to have put his signature to a document — an agreement between him and the Holy See, no less — and an original copy not be provided for him as one of its two major signatories (the other being Cardinal Ratzinger). After all, he was the one who was going to have to go back to Ecône and explain the agreement in detail to the priests and seminarians of his Fraternity (to say nothing of the press), many of whom were hostile to an accommodation with the Holy See. It is simply unthinkable that he would have left the Vatican without such a copy. Archbishop Lefebvre was many things, but stupid is not one of them. As a former Apostolic Delegate for French-speaking Africa and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, he was no novice to ‘affairs of state’. Moreover, had such a signed copy remained in the possession of the Holy See, I am convinced that it would have been, one way or another, made public by now.
Well, does such a copy exist? If it doesn’t, I wonder why.
Leitourgos, this is what I remember about the events of late 1987 and early 1988, leading up to the consecrations of June 30, 1988. I was stationed in Naples, Italy with my family, and we often hosted the District Superior of Italy, Fr. Anthony Esposito, when he came down to Naples for Mass on an occasional weekend. (Father is Rhodesian, and enjoyed speaking English on those weekends.) In late November or very early December, Fr. Esposito told us that an apostolic visitation was in progress at that time, involving some SSPX houses, but focusing on a stop at the seminary in Econe, Switzerland. The apostolic visitors were Cardinal Edouard Gagnon and Monsignor Perl. The latter was never a man of strong convictions, but he concurred with the report of the cardinal, who made it clear to Pope John Paul II (who sent Cardinal Gagnon on the mission in the first place) that Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were doing something very right. The cardinal went so far as to include in his report that the Church should follow the lead of Archbishop Lefebvre — that all seminaries should be run like Econe.
Well, the report collected dust on JPII’s desk for a few months, and we were all on pins and needles wondering when the Holy Father would acknowledge it. The very influential and evil Cardinal Villot tried to distract JPII from the issue of the SSPX, and succeeded for some time, until Archbishop Lefebvre, tired of the shenanigans being played out in the Vatican, publicly stated that if Rome did not act on what he had been told by Cardinal Gagnon was a very positive report, he would have to consecrate bishops without Rome’s involvement. Then, for a couple of months, the Vatican sandbagged the saintly archbishop on the subject of bishops for the Society. Finally, on May 5, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol with Cardinal Ratzinger’s office laying out the path for full reconciliation.
Archbishop Lefebvre, weary at the end of a long day, departed for the district house after the protocol was signed by both parties, and left our friend, Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard (the long-time SSPX envoy to the Vatican) to tidy up any last minute details. It was at this time, Monsieur l’Abbe’ told us, that Cardinal Ratzinger (or one of his minions) placed a sheet of paper in his hands. It was, they said, a “sample” letter of what they needed and forgot to bring up during the negotiations — an apology for all the offenses Archbishop Lefebvre made against Pope John Paul II. Fr. du Chalard said he would take it to the Archbishop, who was by now in Albano Laziale. Once Fr. du Chalard arrived, he went right to the Archbishop’s quarters, on the second floor right across from the choir door of the chapel, and told Monseigneur Lefebvre of the belated demand. As Archbishop Lefebvre held it in his hand, he shook his head slowly, and said in a low, sad voice, “Ils sont méchants.” (They are wicked.)
After a sleepless night, he repudiated the protocol the next day, feeling that if he couldn’t trust the Vatican authorities in such a matter as a demand for something he never did (alleged personal offenses against the pope), he certainly could not trust them to make good on their “promise” to consecrate a bishop for the Society sometime “in the future.” Archbishop Lefebvre said he was sure they were playing for time, hoping for his demise sooner than later, and then they’d be assured that his bothersome Society would die with him. A copy of the May 5 protocol is included in a book published by the Angelus Press titled Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican. In it, you will also find a copy of the “apology” pro forma letter that they shoved into poor Fr. du Chalard’s hands that fateful day.
Marinaio
If you do go along to Fr Bisig’s talk, you might want to tell him about this Swiss bishop who insists the SSPX is not in schism – according to Papa Francis.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-says-the-sspx-are-not-schismatics-retired-swiss-bishop/
Marinaio
Well said! The Archbishop knew what he was up against at that time – they were not dealing honestly with him.
Your mention of being posted to Naples brought back fond memories of my excursions down to that region when I was on holiday in Rome. I was able to visit both the basilica of Our Lady in Pompeii and St. Philomen’s shrine in Mugnano del Cardinale at the opposite end of the Circumvesuviana. Happy times!
Marinaio,
Thank you for this. Most informative.
I see all of this as a result of the breakdown in Church authority since Vatican II, leading to many priests becoming their own authority and thereby exacerbating the crisis in the Church and causing untold supernatural harm to souls in the process.
If I were to assess the Traditional movement of priests over the 40 years since I returned to Tradition, I would say that the vast majority are good, well-intentioned priests whose entire life is devoted to loving God and providing for the souls under their care. The problem seems to be that in the hierarchy of the various Traditional institutions a certain clericalism and individualism has crept in, which is typical of the pride of our age and reminiscent of the arrogant Pharisees of the Gospels. These seem more interested in vying with each other for pole position than with sanctifying souls and defending the faith in its entirety.
I well remember Fr. Bisig and his confreres abandoning the SSPX in 1988 under the pretext that Archbishop Lefebvre had fallen into schism. They didn’t believe that nonsense then and they certainly don’t believe it now. The truth is, the Vatican offered them a new institution in which they would have the Mass without persecution and the privilege of being called “obedient.” All they had to do was nod in approval to the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the conciliar reform for a peaceful life.
Then there was the case of the Papa Stronsay Redemptorists who abandoned the SSPX as soon as Benedict XVI rehabilitated the ancient Mass. Once again, the greater question of the integrity of the faith in general was put aside for convenience’ sake.
Then there was the issue with Bishop Williamson and his “Resistance” movement. These went in the opposite direction by rejecting any and all attempts to negotiate a personal prelature with Rome and ended up truly in schism with the Church.
Now, sad to say, the SSPX is displaying signs within its own hierarchy of this same destructive pride. I can relate from personal experience, for example, that Menzingen takes a very dim view of SSPX faithful attending Masses at “ecclesia Dei” churches, yet scandalously nods in approval to limited use of abortion-tainted vaccines, has very little to say about the scandalous Francis Pontificate and blacklists any lay person who raises concerns about individual superiors, regardless of supportive evidence. Indeed, it now even countenances superiors expelling souls from its churches should they display anything other than complete submission to Father’s whims and/or errors.
How we miss the saint who was Archbishop Lefebvre. This dear prelate was holy, humble, pious and wise, a true image of Our Lord who was firm in the truth and gentle with the lowly souls under his care. Since he went to his eternal reward we have seen that loss of equilibrium and direction. The wrong people are now in charge in my opinion, men unsuited to leadership, which is why holy zeal has largely given way these past few years to complacent self-serving. I say this in regard to all the so-called Traditionalist movements.
In all the years I’ve been reading about the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, I’ve never heard the story of the sample apology letter arriving from Cardinal Ratzinger after Archbishop Lefebvre had signed the agreement. That’s chilling. How sneaky.
It shows that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was no friend of Tradition. He is lauded for rehabilitating the Traditional Mass but I believe this was an act of the Holy Ghost, ensuring the survival of the Traditional Mass, and thus, the Church.
Petrus,
It could be that Pope Benedict felt guilty about that sneaky letter – in fact I remember reading somewhere that it was because he felt bad about his behaviour towards the SSPX that he Summorum Pontificum came about.
Josephine,
I have heard/read that, too, and I think it has the ring of truth about it. As the years passed and Cardinal Ratzinger saw what was happening and, no doubt, conversed with other prelates who were concerned at the state of things, knowing that the new Mass had been a disaster and alienated so many of us, then I think he wanted to make sure he did what he could to repair the damage in his older years. Better late than never.
Josephine and Editor,
That’s a very good point and I very much hope that was the case.
Petrus & Josephine
There is no question that Cardinal Ratzinger felt guilt over that letter and sought to redress the balance when, as Pope, he wrote up SP. But I don’t think anyone who knows the history of Joseph Ratzinger could ever call him Traditionalist. He started out as a young priests very liberal and “progressive” but as the years passed and he witnessed the catastrophic fruits of liberalism (Modernism) in the Church, which he had encouraged, he changed course. But instead of returning fully to Tradition, he came up with this notion of a “hermeneutic of continuity” by which he attempted to reconcile moderate liberalism with Traditionalism. It could never work, of course, because the two are diametrically opposed. Francis knows that, which is why he, a full-blown Modernist, has begun again the task of eradicating the ancient Mass of the saints and martyrs from the Church without mercy. He is also attempting to undermine the Church’s moral teaching. He’ll fail, though!
Very interesting, despite excessive petulant verbiage:
What do the SSPX bishops do? Apart from Bishop Fellay when he was the Superior, I’ve never heard or read a word from any of the others (three, I think?) So why do they need another one? Are there so many young people needing Confirmation?
RCAVictor
Assuming the guy in the video really is in the know, the possibility of new bishops for the SSPX is intriguing.
The first thing I would say is it’s highly unlikely that Menzingen is planning episcopal consecrations without papal permission. In fact, I read recently that Fr. Pagliarani went to visit Pope Francis (either February past or February last year) and they had a cordial discussion. It seems the meeting was arranged by a mutual friend of the Pope and Fr. Pagliarani. It’s difficult to imagine who could have a Traditionalist sueprior general as a friend while at the same time being friends with a Pope who is ideologically Communist, but there it is!
Anyway, what may be on the go here is a personal prelature allowing the SSPX to exist with papal permission in the Church, or it may be just a case of bishops being allowed to replace the present ageing and ailing bishops of the SSPX. Time will tell.
I am also watching to see if Fr. Paul Robinson is named as a potential candidate for episcopal consecration. If so, that would raise a whole new question about what is actually going on. Interesting times indeed.
I still can’t get my head around why Pope Francis is cosying up to the SSPX while actively seeking to eradicate the Traditional Mass from the Church. It may explain why Fr. Bisig is blowing off about the SSPX right now. Maybe Francis just believes in the old adage “keep your friends close and your enemies closer!”
Athanasius,
I can’t get my head around this seemingly schizophrenic “favor the SSPX/destroy Tradition” either. Must be some sort of bizarre Peronist/Jesuit train of thought…or perhaps this Fr. Bisig’s circular firing squad tour is a harbinger of some darker scheme about to come to light.
RCAVictor
Yep, it’s a head scratcher!
This is very interesting:
https://youtu.be/ff2PVOo2sa4
Leitourgos
That video would certainly seems to suggest that there’s some kind of negotiations going on between Pope Francis and the SSPX behind the scenes. Maybe they don’t want to make it public after what happened back in 2011/12 with Bishop Williamson and his so-called “Resistance” movement, which was a public scandal. Interesting times ahead, me thinks!
In my opinion, ongoing contacts more than negotiations. Then again, Pope Francis always maintained contacts with the Fraternity when he was in Argentina.
We have learned more about the upcoming talk of Fr. Bisig, and it is even worse than we thought. I have to admit that when I saw your headline, dear Editor, I began to question whether those words we used in our article, “declaring war,” were accurate. I started daydreaming about the possibility that Fr. Bisig was coming to extend the proverbial olive branch to the nearby SSPX. Fat chance!
After our weekly adoration hour at the FSSP perpetual adoration chapel, we noticed a flyer (on the wall of the vestibule entry) that, upon inquiry to a friend who goes there every week, wasn’t there on Sunday. In fact, my friend had said that the visiting FSSP priest, Fr. Akers, had said from the pulpit that everyone should invite their friends and family from the SSPX Immaculate Conception. But not specifically mentioned before in the bulletin announcement was a line on the flyer that said “RSVP”.
Then, we received information from someone who was present at Fr. Bisig’s talk in Arlington, Virginia, within the last two weeks. He said he currently attends Mass at an FSSP chapel, but that he considers Archbishop Lefebvre to have been saintly, and that he literally had to leave Fr. Bisig’s talk part-way through because it was “100% vitriol against Archbishop Lefebvre”. Our correspondent said he was “shocked at the slanderous tone” used by Fr. Bisig against the Archbishop. Our source also said that the aforementioned Fr. Akers was there as well, and that when introducing Fr. Bisig to the audience, made it clear that the diocese of Arlington (home of the infamous Bishop Burbidge, who used TC to relegate the Mass to a few broom closets, and who has been quoted as saying that the SSPX is schismatic) helped organize Fr. Bisig’s talk. We have been told by another source that an article will appear online in Catholic Family News in the next couple of days describing that talk in Arlington.
So, dear Editor, your headline words were well chosen! And now Mrs. Marinaio and I don’t know if we have the heart (or the stomach) to tolerate being at what will certainly be a most unpleasant talk, now being billed as “A Conversation with Fr. Josef Bisig”.
Marinaio,
While I have every sympathy with you in that it is painful to sit through scandalous talk, whether in a (supposed) sermon or at the kind of event planned by Fr Bisig, I would urge Mrs M and you to go along – if only to make clear that you are not applauding anything he says (literally!) Then [ulterior motive coming up…] you can report back here! Go on, you know it makes sense!
Now, I searched to see if I could find an email address for Fr Bisig and this was the first link to appear
http://www.fsspolgs.org/about/faculty/ So I’ve sent the following email from their contact page…
I would be grateful if you would send me a direct email address for Father Josef Bisig, so that I can send him the link to a blog discussion on the subject of his claims that the SSPX is in schism. This is a courtesy measure only – we do not expect him to engage in correspondence. Thank you.
https://catholictruthscotland.com/2023/04/24/usa-fssp-priest-wages-war-against-sspx-laity-to-clergy-we-just-want-the-mass-help-please/
Marinaio
I wonder if Fr. Bisig is acting on behalf of others in this attack on the SSPX. It’s strange how it has all started up at a time when Pope Francis is trying to rid the Church of the Mass of the saints and martyrs. Or am I being paranoid?
We have just received a call from one of the priests at St. Joan of Arc parish, a very good priest who we have known for some years, asking that we clarify one aspect of our article. Father was concerned that the article seemed to read as if Fr. Bisig was coming to Post Falls for the sole purpose of giving a talk. In fact, Father told us that Fr. Bisig’s visit was scheduled for a purpose unrelated to giving any type of presentation to the faithful. It was decided later that since he would be in town on other business, it would be an opportune time to provide the laity with his insights on 35 years of the Fraternity of St. Peter’s existence.
Crazy that some continue to attack the SSPX. On the other hand, here is some honest praise for the Society:
Remember Bishop Vitus Huonder, the Swiss Bishop of Chur, who – upon retiring – went to live in an SSPX community with the approval (indeed encouragment) of Pope Francis and Ecclesia Dei. (We discussed this here in Jan 2019).
He has released a video (I havent seen it posted elsewhere on the blog – apologies if I have missed it), which is to be one of a series.
The content is quite remarkable, in that he esssentially says he has reached the opinion that +Lefebvre and the SSPX have been right about everything, all along, and the injust treatment they received has been disgraceful. He is also reasonably disapproving of nearly all Popes since Pius XII.
He also says Francis explicitly stated to him that the SSPX are not schismatic.
A very satisfying and vindicating watch, not least given +Huonder is (unlike the SSPX Bishops) a Bishop with a normal canonical standing.
Bishop Huonder speaks German and there are English subtitles:
Gabriel Syme
That is a fantastic video you posted – I have never seen it before and I knew nothing of this bishop. Is there any chance you could post it also on the threat treating of the Mass suppression at Balornock. I think it is pertinent both to this thread and that thread. I would copy it myself but I’ve failed to post videos properly on the last two attempts and I don’t want to risk doing so again.
Many thanks and God bless you for posting this.
Athanasius,
No problem, I have now posted the video on the other threat too.
I look forward to Bishop Huonder’s next installments!