ADMONITION AND APPEAL TO MGR. BERNARD FELLAY WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCTRINAL PREAMBLE

Your Excellency!

The Second Vatican Council is the apostasy that comes from liberalism. It is a real REVOLUTION WITH TIARA AND CAPPA, a theft that instituted religious syncretism, destroyed the lawful rights of the church, abolished Our Lord Jesus Christ’s Social Reign, and opened it to pacifism, masons, communists and Talmudic Hebraism.Monsignor Lefebvre did all he could to explain to the authorities that it was not a Council but a theft. In the end he knew it was better not to communicate officially with Rome. You thought the contrary and returned to modernist Rome. You said that it was you who set the conditions for negotiations and who defines the timetable for your interlocutors. But now the situation has changed. Now the ball is in your court. You must accept the non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble or go home with no possibility of more discussions. The Doctrinal Preamble was handed to you at the meeting with Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, on the 14th of September 2011. The press release from the Holy See stated, ‘This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria for interpreting Catholic doctrine that are necessary in order to guarantee fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to sentire cum Ecclesia[thinking with the Church], while leaving open for legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions or formulations found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Magisterium.’You know that the papal counsel for the interpretation of the legislative texts gave, by his consulter Father Paul Durand, an interpretation of the meaning of this doctrinal preamble: it asks ‘the respect ‘en bloc’ of the Second Vatican Council, i.e. its authenticity and the legitimacy of its doctrine. …instead you’ll be authorised to work at the interpretation of the Council’.Your Excellency, Father Durand explains also in which sense traditionalists are authorised to have a ‘legitimate discussion’. He says, ‘It is a method of dialogue used also in other Christian confessions. But the doctrinal preamble is the minimal unavoidable’. (La Croix, 14thSeptember 2011)It doesn’t seem to me that the two years of dialogue, a dialogue forbidden by Archbishop Lefebvre, with modernist Rome brought good fruits. I don’t think that those across the table from You were convinced that the Second Vatican Council was the direct cause for the crisis of the Church. The council was real thievery, a revolution in Tiara and Cappa, and therefore cannot be a legitimate council, even less, as Father Doran said ‘that historical moment when the Lord went on speaking to people’ and which is not justified even by calling Vatican II a ‘pastoral council’. A council cannot contradict the universal ordinary Magisterium, if only because is it a pastoral council. The council is entirely a poisoned cake, and we know what a mother who wants not to poison her children does with it.Is this no longer taught in seminaries?Do you remember what Mgr. Lefebvre wrote in his book ‘Lo Hanno Detronizzato – They Have Uncrowned Him’, at the beginning of the fourth part, entitled even “The Second Vatican Council, A Revolution in Tiara and Cappa”, in the 24th chapter (The Robber Council of Vatican II) He wrote about the redactors of the counciliar schemas:…‘But I have to admit that we did not succeed in purifying the Council ofthe liberal and modernist spirit that impregnated most of the schemas. Theirdrafters indeed were precisely the experts and the Fathers tainted with thisspirit.Now what can you do when a document is in all its parts drawn up witha false meaning? It is practically impossible to expurgate it of that meaning.Itwould have to be completely recomposed in order to be given a Catholic spirit.’The only reading of the Second Vatican Council in the light of tradition is its condemnation. No magisterial act, ordinary or extraordinary, can pride itself with that title, if there are errors or even if there are ambiguities. This is taught by Pius VI in the bulla Auctorem Fidei, 28thAugust 1794:‘[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception.In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties oftheir tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such aswould allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner.Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changesor additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessaryfor our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circum-stances under which it is used.For very good reasons it can never be toler-ated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teachingthe truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.’In 2001 you said that you did not want any more official contacts with modernist Rome. You wanted to wait for its conversion. But you started official negotiations anyway because – as you often used to say – ‘something has changed in Rome’. Then you said that you would convert Rome with dialogue. In the meantime Benedict XVI convoked Assisi III. It seems to me that you have fallen into the trap that Mgr. Lefebvre called ‘puerile illusion’.The German Shepherd is prevailing over the Saint Bernard.I wish you a courageous retreat from the three traps: the ‘theological’ dialogues, the retirement of the excommunications and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum from 2007.I wish you also to apply the commendation that Mgr. Lefebvre gave to the seminarians, priests and faithful, confronting with prudence and wisdom the problem of the authority of the Conciliar Church, which is the real non-negotiable preamble to today’s situation.During a spiritual conference on the 15thof April 1986, he said:When the Pope is a heretic, is he still Pope? I don’t know, I don’t solve thequestion! But you can ask yourselves the question. I think that all reasonablepeople should ask themselves the question. I don’t know. Is it then so urgentto talk about it now? ...We can also not talk about it… We can talk about itprivately, in our offices, in our private conversations, between seminarians,between priests, and so on… Are we to talk about it to the faithful? Many sayno, don’t talk about it to the faithful. They will be scandalized. It will be terrible,it will take many very far away…’. Well I said to the priest in Paris when Iassembled them, I said to those I already told you about. I said that I thinkthat little by little we must give some explanations to the faithful… I don’tsay that we must do it crudely, giving it to them and frightening them… no.But I think that anyway and precisely it is a question of faith. The faithful do nothave to lose the faith. We have the duty of conserving the faith of our faithful, topreserve it. They will lose the faith … also our traditionalists’.A few days later, while at an Eastern homily, which was recorded (and should have been published earlier this year) he repeated this idea.Surely we cannot lose the faith in one day. We lose it progressively. But you see, your Excellency, you say you agree with Benedict XVI about the Holy Trinity. You repeat in the interview on the 15th of September that ‘when it concerns dogmas, as that of the Holy Trinity, we agree evidently, as we found it recalled in the Second Vatican’.Are you really sure you want to refer to thieves, to a revolution to profess the faith? Would you refer also to the Synod of Pistoia for justifying your faith? Did you consider the Holy Trinity in the context of the Second Vatican Council? The expression ‘Holy Trinity’ in the Second Vatican Council has a different meaning from the Catholic one.I beg you, renounce all these connections with modernist Rome, for the conservation of your Faith, of the priests’ Faith and that of the faithful, those who follow you!Don Floriano Abrahamowicz