By Br. Alexis Bugnolo
I cannot be silent at the diabolic attack made against the Vicar of Jesus Christ by FSSPX.NEWS the official news outlet of the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre, C.S.Sp. (1905 – 1991).
Little has been published about the heresies and blasphemies and idolatries of Bergoglio, the anti-pope par excellence. But within a week of the publication of a book defending priestly celibacy against Bergoglio’s fiendish plan to destroy it, there is the SSPX quick on the attack, like hounds.
You can read their absurd critique here. To say their argument is strained or in search of evidence to prove its a priori accusations, would be an accurate assessment. Let us take a look at the errors in this article:
A GRAVE DEVIATION?
The author of the article begins by attacking Pope Benedict’s declared intention of explaining the priesthood apart from the “methodological defect in the reception of Scripture as the Word of God.” Evidently the author here shows his complete ignorance of historical theology. The term “word of God” was never in the entire history of the Church prior to the 1260’s applied to Sacred Scripture. For Christians before 1260, the Word of God was only one: Jesus Christ. It was at the University of Paris that an analogy was made, based on phrases in the Old Testament which refer to revelations made to the prophets as, “the word of the Lord”, between Sacred Scripture as revealed truth and Jesus Christ as the Truth revealing.
This attribution by the Scholastics was innocent at first, but with time it became divorced from the concept of analogy and with the Reformation it became not “the word of God”, but “The Word of God”, replacing the Mass and the Most Blessed Sacrament with the Bible as the new medium of union with God, under the control of the expert layman, who dictated what Scripture meant, without reference to the Tradition of the Church.
This, since the time of the Reformation, has become indeed a grave theological and methodological error in interpreting Christianity or Sacred Scripture. And thus to fault Pope Benedict XVI for this approach is to adhere to the very errors of Luther and Bergoglio, who just made Scripture Sunday a new day of cult in his Church, with the placement of the Scriptures on the central axis of the nave of Churches, where the Eucharist and the Tabernacle had pride of place before the Council.
A FLAWED EXEGESIS
The next chapter bears a critical title, but the text does not display any substantive disagreement.
Granted that it is better to talk of offices than ministries, but it does not fundamentally alter a theological exposition which is non technical.
WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH
In this chapter, the author agrees, without making much of the praise due to the Holy Father for his exposition. Remarkable, as his affirmations here cut directly against the notion of the priesthood promoted during the Aggiornamento, of the priest as actor, guide and facilitator.
AN ERRONEOUS THEOLOGY?
In this chapter, the author attacks Pope Benedict for writing: “The crucifixion of Jesus is not in itself an act of worship.” And the author admits that the Pope is referring to the action of the Roman Soldiers. But nevertheless, the author goes on the attack and tries to draw the expression of the Pope over to a denial of Christ’s offering of His Passion as an act of worship. This is the absurd method of reading used by Sedevacantists. It is most unworthy of a Catholic priest or priestly society.
In truth, it is a historical fact, that the Roman Soldiers did not put Jesus Christ to death as an act of worship to the Emperor or any Roman or Greek god. Neither did the High Priests sacrifice Jesus as an act of worship of any God. So what the Pope says is perfectly correct. The pope is using “crucifixion” in its active sense, as the crucifying of Jesus, not as ‘the being crucified of Jesus.’ The one is an act of public execution, the other is the matter which Christ offered in the Holy Spirit to the Eternal Father for the Redemption of all. And I do not think you need a degree in theology to understand the difference. The former was objectively a sin, that of condemning the Just to death, the latter was a great act of Mercy, which merited the freedom from condemnation for all those destined to eternal death, who would receive His Sacrifice in faith.
When Archbishop Viganò exposed Bergoglio for covering for pedophiles, the Society was one of the last to speak on the issue. It has been seven years of continual heresies, scandals and blasphemies, but the Society rarely denounces publicly Bergoglio. Suffice it to say, that to publish such a flimsy and error-ridden attack within a week on Pope Benedict’s Book with Cardinal Sarah raises a lot of questions as to the real goals and agenda of a priestly society which still insists that all its priests offer their Masses una cum papa Francisco.
I won’t even mention that the Italian version of this released at Rome (see here) insults the Holy Father by calling him by his baptismal name at the end of the second paragraph of the essay. Nor will I mention, that which is no secret, that the big money behind the SSPX comes from Eastern Switzerland, the power base of the St. Gallen Mafia.
8 thoughts on “SSPX reluctant to fault Bergoglio, quick to attack Pope Benedict”
SSPX has been trying to ‘carry water on both shoulders’ since the advent of Bergoglio. This latest diatribe against Pope Benedict is another example.
Reblogged this on PASSAPAROLADESSO.
Just when you thought things could not possibly get any worse. This is insane. What a diabolical sellout and betrayal of everything the SSPX was founded upon!
My family made the decision a year ago to attend only SSPX Masses. I cringe every time I enter the chapel and see the antipope’s picture. During the Canon of the Mass, I ALWAYS pray for Pope Benedict. How much worse can all of this get? Even the Catholic Byzantine churches pray for the antipope! Am I committing a mortal sin by attending such Masses? In the words of the the Apostles- “Lord, to whom else shall we go, You have the words of everlasting life!”
The Old Latin Mass said una cum papa Francisco is offered formally for an antipope. Unlike the Novus Ordo, in many vernacular versions, where the pope only gets mentioned for prayers, the antipope would only get a prayer like a head of state, and these masses, I do not believe are formally schismatic. I think you should speak to your priest and follow my advice in https://fromrome.info/2019/12/14/saving-souls-in-the-time-of-apostasy/ because the information there can convert him back to Pope Benedict XVI and this is what Our Lady wants of all Her priests.
From an extremely hopeful and prayerful standpoint, perhaps a faithful, mighty, bold prelate will rise from among them to take on Bergoglio & succeed BXVI?
Petrus Romanus II, where art thou?
Finally, I read what I have been wondering about. The SSPX constantly condemned St. John Paul ll and still does. Now they attack the Supreme Pontiff Pope Benedict XVl. But they say next to nothing about Bergoglio, the leader of the false religion. Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre would condemn his Society for this satanic act.
Comments are closed.