Sancte Petre...Quo vadis? Quid facis?

A brief expose on the Fraternity of St. Peter by some former seminarians in September 1993

Introduction

In its five years of existence, the Fraternity of St. Peter has dangerously straddled the ever-widening gap between Tradition and Modernism. It can hardly be said to be building upon a 'rock' when it is trying to serve two masters.

This self-imposed compromise has seen disastrous consequences by the fact of having their hands tied - because they depend upon modernist and liberal bishops for Holy Orders. It's unwise to criticize the modernism and liberalism of your bishop today, if you want him to ordain you tomorrow.

Archbishop Lefebvre said back in 1989, that Rome would try to lure traditionalists into modernist control. The Fraternity of St. Peter is an instrument that they can and do use. Rome allows them the Tridentine Mass as often and as long as Rome deems it necessary to draw the faithful into the modernist net, so that they too can straddle truth and error, Tradition and Modernism!

So we see the precarious position of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Liberalism and Modernism are contagious "diseases" - place clean clothes in a smoky room and after some time the clothes take on the smell of smoke. What if you place yourself into a liberal or modernist atmosphere? The faithful risk the same contamination as the Fraternity of St. Peter! Do we really imagine that Rome has changed? Rome's repeated flirtation with false religions and heretical opinions says no! Do we wish to risk our Faith by letting ourselves be controlled by such a dangerous mentality? Tradition says no! This letter, prepared by 3 seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X, shows that what is risky in theory is even more deadly in practice!

Consecrations without pontifical mandate and against the will of the Sovereign Pontiff are intrinsically bad because they violate the divine constitution of the Church. (Fr. Lugmeyer at a conference in Poland, April 1993)

The consecrations, like those of 1988, are a schismatic act "par excellence" - the reason also for the schism. (Fr. Bisig, at a conference to seminarians and in private to several seminarians)

Why? Because "in the Church, authority is first, the Faith second." Fr. Bisig, in conference to seminarians. Fr. Baumann would also often put forward this idea in his courses on spirituality.

Authority being first, it is necessary that obedience to the same Magisterium can never lead to error or sin. The ordinary Magisterium must then be infallible or at the very least, obedience to this Magisterium cannot lead to anything but heaven. "Hence one understands that the pope cannot err and that to follow him leads always to heaven, one then discovers an indefinable interior peace." Fr. Baumann to seminarians in private.

To criticize even the ordinary Magisterium is impossible. Only the Magisterium is judge of the continuity of a teaching in light of Tradition. Reason cannot be judge. Any other attitude is equivalent to placing one's self outside the Church and to being the judge. It is being Protestant. (Frs. Baumann & Bisig, during conferences)

Traditionalism results in a free conscience (sola traditio replaces the Protestant saying sola fides, sola scriptura, sola gratia). (Fr. Gouyaud in a Year of Spirituality course 1991-1992)

The rule of faith is not this so-called Tradition but today's interpretation of the gifts of revelation is by the living and authentic Magisterium. Fr. Baumann.

2. The consequences of this New Ecclesiology according to it's principles

One cannot be Catholic and reject even one document of the Second Vatican Council ...He who is a Catholic seminarian necessarily possesses in his library the texts of Vatican II, for these texts are the Church ...The Council contains newly defined dogmas. One must adhere to them with supernatural faith. (Fr. Baumann in conference a short while before admitting candidates to the diaconate and to the priesthood, Spring 1993)

These (newly defined) dogmas are collegiality and the sacramentality of the episcopate. I must confess that on this subject, I don't understand at all why Pope Paul VI ordered the addition of the Nota Praevia since the text of the constitution Lumen Gentium is in itself perfectly clear as to the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. (Fr. Baumann in private to two seminarians)

The doctrine of collegiality was, this year [1993], officially taught to seminarians by Fr. Hausheer without this professor ever being worried about it at all. Fr. Recktenwald taught the same thing to German speaking seminarians. This same Fr. Recktenwald said in his course on fundamental theology that "the difference between the Fraternity of St. Peter and St. Pius X is that the former completely accepts Vatican Council II as orthodox."

The only difficulties with the Council which might still be accepted or tolerated find themselves being committed in the new hermeneutics (the interpretation of scripture). We quote as an example the "substance" of the Council which has replaced the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. For the "theologians" of St. Peter, this causes no problem at all, Cardinal Ratzinger having explained (against reason itself) that "subsist" is stronger than "is". Equally, the question of Dignitatis Humanae, which logically finds its solution in the Chemere-Harrison theories, where one plays around with or twists wording.

Fr. Baumann explained on several occasions this year that he saw a grave error within the Society of St. Pius X, and that for a long time, in the fact of pretending to bring to light by other conferences or public acts, such and such ambiguous text of Pope John Paul II. According to him, one must always search for orthodoxy and take what is good from acts or texts which, taken as a whole, tend to confirm some lack of doctrinal soundness. He claimed that no one ever has been able to prove that Pope John Paul II to be anything other than doctrinally correct. Fr. Baumann explained as well, when he was speaking of Mortalium animos, that this encyclical was nothing but a product of its times and that it contained nothing but intangible ideas.

As for the New Catechism, it is recommended to seminarians for use in the courses of Frs. Baumann, du Fay, Recktenwald and in other courses. It remains a possibility to say that it sometimes lacks clarity (on the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice mainly) but not to the point where it would have a doctrinal problem [cf. read more on the problems of the New Catechism].

Fr. du Fay had said publicly that the critique of the Catechism made by Fr. Simoulin is unacceptable and, considering his abilities as a theologian, incomprehensible, nay criminal!

Frs. du Fay, Baumann, and Recktenwald, are to the seminary, the fervent spreaders of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. When Fr. Keller, in 1992, dared to criticize Redemptom Missio he received a reprimand in the form of a warning from the rector, after having been denounced by some seminarians. Due to Fr. Loiscau, being ordained priest on June 29, 1993 by Cardinal Decourtray, one of the "contributions" of the seminary to the program booklet of the Pilgrimage of Christendom (Chartres Pilgrimage) this year was a praise of the New Catechism, called "a light given to the world." Its rejection is said to be something unthinkable!

Even though the Fraternity of St. Peter had been founded for the conservation of the traditional liturgy as expressed in the liturgical books of 1962, it has today refused to defend the traditional liturgy for theological reasons and thus has ceased to criticize the reforms of Pope Paul VI. Last year even, under the direction of Fr. Gouyaud, discussion on this subject was possible.

This lead to such discord at the seminary, that this year Fr. Baumann forbade all public reflection on the subject. The professor of liturgy, Fr. Benedict, O.Cist., who always refused to be silent on the New Mass, was at the end of the year dismissed from the seminary. For Frs. Bisig and Baumann, the New Mass is neither illegitimate nor un-Catholic, neither is it objectively less good than the traditional rite. Insofar as it is a rite, it sanctifies and represents a liturgical option that is completely Catholic.

However, the type of criticism in the style of Cardinal Ratzinger is permitted, at least in theory. In fact, the majority of seminarians do not understand why the New Mass is not good. They are forced to assist at it on Sundays during their vacations - if they cannot profit by the 1984 (88) Indult when at home, since everyone is forbidden to ever assist at a Mass said by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.

On the occasion of Miss Radler's [a great benefactor of the Fraternity] funeral in Wigratzbad, the seminarians were forced to assist at the Mass according to the New Rite. The vast majority having, on account of this, abstained from Communion at the community Mass, communicated from the hands of Bishop Stimpfle. Fr. Hygonnet having refused to assist there, was summoned by Fr. Gouyaud and threatened with expulsion, then later on from orders. He was called "schismatic."

To justify the use of the liturgical books of 1962 has become difficult, and the superiors, when they further attempt to present such a justification, do it in the name of pluralism in the Ratzinger style, or still, in the case of Fr. Baumann this year, by simply only making reference to the constitutions of the Fraternity, without either making allusion to their reason for being, nor to their origin. Frs. Bisig and Baumann love to repeat that the traditional liturgy is to the Fraternity what the lgnatian spirit is to the Jesuit order: a simple charisma.

Fr. Baumann began the academic year 1992-93 by declaring that, the desire to celebrate the New Mass is not bad in itself. Fr. Coiffet, at a retreat for those being tonsured in 1992, explained how a place of choice is naturally reserved in the Church to priests of the Novus Ordo. On the subject of the departure of Fr. Hausheer for the Stuttgart diocese, Fr. Baumann recalled that to say the New Mass and to give Communion in the hand remains a Catholic option.

For Fr. Baumann, the saying of the New Mass is only sinful in the Fraternity, because it is disobedience to the will of the pope, since the Fraternity keeps to the liturgical books of 1962. Fr. Gouyaud, then the rector (1992), surprised seminarians at one conference, by declaring that the traditional rite, in itself, can lead to schism. To which Fr. Baumann this year said: "No", because the pope has authorized its practice, and by this authorization and by it alone, provides the perfectly Catholic character of the traditional rite.

Now we come to the problem connected with concelebration. All during his year as rector, Fr. Gouyaud tried to impose the acceptance, among seminarians, of concelebration, and worked for its official introduction into the Fraternity. There should be seen "a necessary sign to manifest and maintain a full ecclesiastical communion with a given presbyterium." A candidate was all together refused for his categoric refusal of this "act of ecclesiastical communion." At the root of Fr. Gouyaud's fervor, was pressure coming from the French and German bishops, and more precisely by the accusations of schism carried against Frs. Bisig and Gouyaud by Bishop Stimpfle (at that time bishop of Augsburg) for these very reasons of concelebration: "You'll be in a state of consummated schism until you agree to concelebrate with me."

More recent overtones came from the sermon of Cardinal Decourtray at the ordinations in Lyon this year. He expressed his firm hope there to see very soon the priests of the Fraternity concelebrate the Mass of Maundy Thursday.

Fr. Bisig, insisting on his position as superior of the Fraternity (which is not, properly speaking, true, since it is really the pope - the Fraternity being of pontifical right), declared that he would not ask his priests to concelebrate, believing thus to prove to these priest members that they need not concelebrate. He confessed nevertheless to being ready to concelebrate with the Sovereign Pontiff if that was asked of him. And, responding to the invitation of Cardinal Decourtray, he is said to be ready to concelebrate in this way with him "in the reformed rite of Paul VI."

What is more, Fr. Denis le Pivain was recently named responsible to research the possibility and the fundamental theology of concelebrating in the traditional rite. This priest being openly favorable to this manner of celebrating, the answer is all but given!

If the consecrations of 1988 represent "the schismatic act par excellence," then the whole Society of St. Pius X at that time, its members taken individually as well as the faithful, is schismatic. To ask sacraments from its priests or to collaborate with them in any way becomes inconceivable. The superiors of the Fraternity of St. Peter, however, go further in logic than Rome, by the simple fact of assisting at a Mass said by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X is to that of the Fraternity of St. Peter condemned as "adhering to the schism."

To participate at a Mass said by an SSPX priest is an abomination, because that is to take part in the destruction of the Mystical Body - which is schism. (Fr. Gouyaud in a conference to seminarians before the Christmas vacation, December, 1991)

To participate at a Mass of the SSPX for a seminarian is an adherence to the schism, and for the faithful as well, if this participation is habitual. (Frs. Bisig and Baumann)

That is not all, for if they admit that Archbishop Lefebvre had consummated the schism in 1988, the question quickly gets posed - to know at what moment did the rupture begin? Aided by the new ecclesiology, they always end up getting carried away to extremes and to disowning more and more, the most basic ideas and principles in the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Thus the majority of members in the Fraternity of St. Peter reject the famous declaration of 1974 as a clearly schismatic tendency. Many are convinced that the refusal to submit to the suspensio a divinis is equally schismatic, while others think that the categoric refusal of the Novus Ordo Missae was the beginning of the "rupture with the Church."

"The problem with the Society of St. Pius X is the consecrations. We left because of the consecrations." Frs. Bisig, Baumann, Coiffet and Gouyaud to the faithful of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Yet they say:

You must clearly understand that the initial error of the Society of St. Pius X is not the consecration, but a schismatic attitude - to want to judge the Church (i.e. the ordinary Magisterium) which has been there from early on. The sin is one of arrogance, of a lack of humility, of elitism and Sectarianism." (Fr. Baumann to seminarians 1992-1993)

The consecrations did nothing but make a schismatic situation evident, which in actuality already had existed for a long time. It would, therefore, be profoundly erroneous to see in the Fraternity of St. Peter, a continuation of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, since this work was fundamentally bad. (Fr. Gouyaud, then rector 1991-92)

We, former members of [Society of] St. Pius X, we were greatly relieved by the agreement of 1988, of which the Fraternity of St. Peter is benefiting from, for while with St. Pius X, we never knew if we were within the Church or schismatics. (Fr. McCready, then 3rd year in a video cassette, Fraternity of St. Peter, largely circulated in the USA)

However, the superiors continued to pretend publicly, but above all in private, that their departure was due to the consecrations and that they would have stayed had they not taken place. Likewise, they often accuse Archbishop Lefebvre to have given up on the agreement of 1988 in bad faith, whereas for them, they remained faithful.

We notice that for the Archbishop, a certain contempt, even a veritable hatred is permitted and sometimes even encouraged among seminarians. A number of them, not caring about their former superior, offered the opinion that the venerable prelate would certainly be in hell!

From the beginning of this scholastic year, the rector of the seminary forbade pictures of Archbishop Lefebvre, which could be seen by a confrere, a superior, or one of the faithful. Fr. Baumann declared on this occasion:

Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated and schismatic - the judgment of the Church is certain. I pray for him, but I must insist on the gravity of his acts - even before 1988. In any case, a public Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated for such a person. Of course, a private Mass could be said even for the intention of Judas Iscariot or for Nero, and such a Mass could be said for the repose of the soul of Archbishop Lefebvre.

In private, he tried to justify this brutal attack by declaring:

You know, heretics and schismatics were often good men, seen as St.ly men, but who sinned by arrogance and pride, preferring their own ideas and opinions to those of the Church. That is, by the way, the original sin of the Society of St. Pius X. (Fr Baumann)

Moreover, Fr. Bisig on several occasions professed to know that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, at least since 1986, and that he was from the beginning, hostile to the negotiations with Cardinal Ratzinger and even more to the protocol resulting from it.

It would be no exaggeration to say that the only real unity within the Fraternity of St. Peter and the seminary, can only be found in joining in with the condemnations and the hatred of the Society of St. Pius X by the official Church. It is strictly forbidden to cast any doubts, even in theory, on the fact of any schism having actually occurred -for the existence of the schism of 1988 was regarded as a dogmatic fact. All initiatives, even ones coming from Rome, in light of a "reconciliation' of the Society of St. Pius X with the official Church, found a strong adversary in the persons of Frs. Bisig and Baumann, who when commenting on this subject, in flagrant contradiction with their principles, said things of this sort:

These attempts at reconciliation with [the Society of] St. Pius X are the wrongful expression of this false ecumenism being seen in the modem Rome.

But however, to defend the meetings like those of Assisi is something to which they are no strangers!

We remember Frs. Bisig and Baumann saying that the Fraternity of St. Peter is not a continuation of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and does not exist merely to preserve Tradition, but only exists to give a greater liturgical wealth (according to the wishes of Cardinal Ratzinger's) and to sanctify its members, who feel a subjective need for "these ancient forms of piety".

In fact, Rome only seems to see the Fraternity as a means of weakening the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Bisig stated more than once that, to Rome (to Cardinal Ratzinger in particular), one finds the continuation of the Fraternity opportune in its goal of recuperation; and that Cardinal Innocenti has asked several times on the reason for the lack numbers of "Arrests, seminarians and faithful resuming from the Society of St. Pius X to the Church." In 1992-1993, not one seminarian entering the seminary that year could be said to be 'returning to the Church' from the Society of St. Pius X - neither among the seminarians, nor among the priests formally incarnated into Wigratzbad. Neither were the faithful deserting or "coming back?" from the Society of St. Pius X.

The Superior General willingly accepts such reasons for the existence of his Fraternity. He recently congratulated himself in having brought back a group of traditionalists in Rapid City (USA). He praised Fr. Irwin for his practical approach and his tact in his contacts with "these old schismatics." Jokingly, he told of how he was invited by the faithful, who would show him with pride the photos of their weddings, blessed by priests of the Society of St. Pius X and how he couldn't find the courage to explain to them that "these marriages were invalid."

Let us note that this theory of the invalidity of confessions and marriages performed by the Society of St. Pius X has been raised by Fraternity of St. Peter's to the level of a dogmatic fact. In view of the fact that current Fraternity vocations have had no contact with the Society of St. Pius X or Archbishop Lefebvre, the Superior General told these men to be privately informed about the Society of St. Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre in order to attract and to fool the faithful of the Society of St. Pius X, by having a superficial likeness to them.

The Fraternity of St. Peter is hypocritical on many points. There are many examples of this. Fr. Pozzetto, prior of the house in Lyon, believes that no change of principle or compromise of doctrine has taken place. He himself, gives in to all the insistent demands of the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyon.

Yet Fr. Pozzetto represents the minority branch of "firm-principled" (relatively speaking) members of the Fraternity. This is why he has never occupied a position of importance at St. Peter's. Yet he remains willing to give in to once unthinkable compromises - to cooperate with a modernist clergy, to encourage a filial submission to Cardinal Decourtray, to impose hands at the recent ordination of a priest, which caused him to make the following remarks: "I cannot conceive of a vocation outside of a commitment to work."

He went far enough to get the approval, nay the blessing of the Archbishop of Lyon, who agreed this year to ordain French deacons to the Fraternity in the traditional rite. We note here that Cardinal Decourtray several weeks before the ceremony, in an interview published by France Catholique, expressed his total acceptance of the reforms of Vatican II and expressed his desires that the Fraternity of St. Peter would soon become bi-ritual. All this was kept secret from the seminarians, despite the fact that Fr. Pozzetto was necessarily aware of the Cardinal's interview and comments.

The Fraternity is often described as a clerical society of pontifical right, and as such, it is a society with solid and protected foundations. In fact, its statutes are still to this day ad experimentum, and the request on the part of Fr. Bisig to see them definitively approved by Rome was rejected in 1991 by Cardinal Innocenti. The Fraternity is then entirely at the mercy and whim of Rome which has named a prelate responsible to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, a prelate whom, as Fr. Bisig says does not hide his open hostility to Tradition.

However, the practice of the Novus Ordo and bi-ritualism remains forbidden in the Fraternity. Why? Not for objective or doctrinal reasons but for pragmatism. Fr. Bisig explained his conviction that on the practical side of things, bi-ritualism would be harmful as regards the survival of the Fraternity.

This year, the Superior General said, in effect, to the auxiliary bishop of Salzburg, that his refusal of the Novus Ordo had no theological foundation nor even a purely objective one. The rector of the priory in Salzburg, Fr. Georges, who was scandalized by these remarks, did get a weak retraction out of Fr. Bisig, which was, however, never communicated to the prelate mentioned above.

On the question of concelebration, the liberal Fr. Denis Le Pivain, was secretly instructed to study the matter and to come up with a means of justifying concelebration. However, throughout this time he took care to represent himself as someone who would always refuse to take part in such an innovation.

We must speak as well of the extreme condescendence ceaselessly shown, on all sides, towards any liberal or modernist, even towards priests who more or less discretely celebrated the New Mass.

The French journal La Nef ran an article on the current progress and state of affairs since the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. In this article, Fr. Coiffet, the Fraternity's District Superior of France, solemnly declared that there was no question of Fraternity priests ever celebrating the New Mass. Yet at that same period in time, most of the priests in his French district were suspected of saying the New Mass.

Fr. Laffargue said the New Mass publicly and without any worries. He is actually, staying incarnated to St. Peter's and with the approval of the Superior General, is the priest appointed to see that the Mass of Paul VI is said in Bishop Perrier's cathedral.

Fr. Jose Lopez, ordained in 1992, said the New Mass at Perpignan, less than one week after his ordination. He drew attention by abandoning the cassock, in residing with the priests of the diocesan clergy, then he ended up by requesting to be laicized (after having spent twelve years in different seminaries). When asked on various occasions by some seminarians on the case of Fr. Lopez, Fr. Baumann lied about all these scandalous things.

In 1991-92, we had serious doubts about Fr. Jacquemin, who was thought to have concelebrated the New Mass with modernist clergy with whom he was sharing the church of St. Otily. Already, this priest refused all contact with the Fraternity and rejected its liturgical exclusivity.

Furthermore, Frs. Schubert and McCready who were stationed at the mission in Versailles, located only several blocks from the apartment of the District Superior, were already publicly celebrating both rites. Fr. Schubert refused to obey even the most simple rubrics of the traditional rite while he continued to preach heretical and Zionist teachings along the lines of Cardinal Lustiger. We might add that these priests assisted Canon Porta in his duties as pastor of Notre Dame des Armes Church.

It was not proven that Fr. Gouyaud or Fr. Leonhardt had ever celebrated the New Mass, but given their positions, it is probable. For we recall that Fr. Gouyaud, while rector had said "the traditional liturgy cannot be in any case an absolute" and that "its unilateral practice leads to schism."

Regarding the situation in Germany, where the Fraternity has no official apostolate, (the German episcopal conference has stated that they will have no official standing there as long as the Fraternity refuses to celebrate the new liturgy).

Fr. Rohr, sent to study in Rome, concelebrated there. Several scandalous remarks were also attributed to him, one of them being -"it can be sinful today to refuse to celebrate the New Mass, since the need for priests is great." As in the case of Frs. Lopez, Laffargue, Schubert, and McCready, no sanction was taken against this modernist priest, and if he left, it is because he supported the New Mass.

Fr. Hausheer was a seminary professor four years. He recently tried to take away the Fraternity's only official German apostolate in Stuttgart. He had started to say the New Mass because he considered the Fraternity schismatic. If he was punished at all, it was very late in coming and only for having disobeyed Fr. Bisig.

At the seminary, he was spiritual director and professor. He openly taught existentialism and personalism, while pretending it was the Thomism of our times. He taught as orthodox the idea of universal salvation. In his lectures, he recommended works by modernist writers such as: Maritain, Congar, and Schillebeeckx. The difficult passages of Lumen Gentium as well as Dignitatis Humanae were for him really points of orthodoxy, upon which he based his course De Ecclesia and imposed its texts as if they were infallible (which they are not).

At the end of his ethics course, he confessed himself to be a convinced personalist. We point out that the theme which he prepared at the University of Stuttgart tried to reconcile Thomistic thought with this more than ambiguous system. One example of this is the case where after having established that rape is not a human act, he explained that the religious in Africa, who are exposed to the very great risk of being raped, would have the right to use contraceptives!

With all this going on at the seminary, there is no doctrinal unity, neither moral, nor of discipline. The oppositions and contradictions proliferate. Fr. Baumann rejects as proximate heresy the teachings of Karl Rahner, whereas, Fr. Prosinger, also a professor at the seminary, teaches it even while being more firm on the Mass than Fr. Baumann. The doctrinal formation at the seminary is substantially dependent on Conciliar professors who celebrate of course, the New Mass even at the seminary (and there are seminarians who serve the New Mass).

We mention in contrast, Fr. Emerson, this year he chose as theme for his spiritual conferences the struggle of Pope Pius X against Modernism. Fr. Baumann, shocked, insisted that he renounce his project - but with no success. Fr. Emerson having declared to have for his spiritual Fathers, St. Dominic and Archbishop Lefebvre, he was severely reprimanded by the rector. He distinguished himself by his courses on the History of the Church (on the question of the possibility of a heretical pope, on the culpability of the Jews in the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, etc...) and thus by his statement: I think of myself as an integrist and am proud to be one. He finally made his position at the seminary impossible by a lecture in one conference on the Sodalitium Pianum. He was dismissed at the end of the year.

Regarding the practical situation of the seminarian at Wigratzbad, the following remarks should be made:

The only existing unity can be summed up as a sort of false charity resembling the spirit of ecumenism, where all differences, even illegitimate ones, as long as they are favorable to left wing, are tolerated. Such a charity is phony, of course, and it is as well - one of the reasons why the atmosphere there is extremely unhealthy and the spiritual life impossible. The discipline is dying, since the rector supports the most liberal wing. The liturgy, despised, always comes in last place. A worldly spirit prevails there, vulgarity is the rule (the overly familiar "tu" instead of "vous" as a form of address, for example); rudeness and indecent stories are, alas, all too common!

Having read this letter, we are both consoled and saddened. Consoled that many were right in saying that the Fraternity of St. Peter was a "dead end" at the best, betrayal and cowardice at the worst. Saddened at the plight they have put themselves in. Today the Fraternity of St. Peter goes to Rome. Yet, like their patron, they will go to their death. Today's Rome is a merciless, a New Rome, with a new theology. To go naively to this New Rome, is to flee the Catholic Rome of old and the Faith. The Society of St. Pius X flees this New Rome in order to preserve the Faith of Peter. The Eternal Rome or the New Rome?

sspx.org © 2013                    home                    contact