Not once, but twice, does St. Paul warn the Galatians against those amongst them who would preach a false doctrine.
I recently came across a document which was posted on the Society of St. Pius X United States District home page on 20 December of this year that was so stunning that it deserves worldwide attention. This document was written by Father Regis de Cacqueray, SSPX, District Superior of France and is entitled Keeping Calm Amid the Storm, which was translated into English from the original French (see link here) to be posted on the District website. This document coincides with similar themed ideas circulating within the Fraternity of St. Peter, who are pleading with their faithful from the pulpit not to "jump off the ship during the storm." What is utterly disconcerting is the standard operating procedure of the Fraternity to withhold publicly the name of the priest in this sermon, since fear of reprisal from the modernist gestapo in Rome suffocates their order like a polluted smog.
It does not take a strong imagination to sketch out in one's mind the thrust of Fr. de Cacqueray's four-part plea. It is obvious that with each revelation given by Jorge Bergoglio that it is becoming ever more distressing for the faithful who have even the most remote semblance of a traditional sensus Catholicus to reconcile this man purporting to be the Pope as a Catholic.
Those of us who have put in time with the SSPX know that Fr. de Cacqueray is well-respected, and is no doubt a devout priest who regularly writes about matters concerning the Society. So it is not surprising that the US District would put his piece front-and-center on the home page in an effort to calm down the natives who are justifiably becoming restless. What is surprising is the blunt and frankly, damning admission it makes, and the gravity of what it means for those who assist at the SSPX.
The first part of the document, entitled The Revolution is rather benign and par for the course for SSPX writings: an overview of the effect of evil on society, rebellion against the Divine Order, and a short exposé on the revolution. So far so good; nothing unusual. Then we come to the second part of the document, entitled The Pope is a Revolutionary. In this portion lies the "meat of the matter" that we wish to discuss.
Part two of the document begins with a comparison of Bergoglio to Jean-Jacques Rosseau and his (Bergoglio's) comments made this past autumn about atheists, good and evil, and man following his own conscience about what he believes to be good and evil. And to this, Father de Cacqueray writes:
Pope Francis, like all his predecessors since the Council, is a revolutionary. He is in rupture with the immutable Tradition of the Church and he is teaching in its stead a new doctrine that is poisoning souls.
However, what is most disturbing and should horrify the faithful who sit in Society pews is the admission that Father is making which is not in this article: the Society of St. Pius X is in union both in spirit and in the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a man they now publicly admit is teaching a false doctrine!
The cracks in the foundation are rendering the structure to the point of failure, and Father knows it. Make no mistake, there is a reason why such an article is appearing on the District web site. Making the assertion that a person they view as the Pope to be teaching false doctrine is no small matter.
This truly is "the emperor has no clothes on" moment, and in light of these statements, it is long overdue that all of those who call themselves traditional Catholics, particularly those who assist at the SSPX, take hard looks in the mirror and begin to ask themselves serious questions. Society faithful have been desensitized to such statements as Fr. de Cacqueray's because they are a matter of routine. A recent example is one made by Bishop Bernard Fellay, who at the 2013 Angelus Conference in Kansas City, described "Pope" Francis as a "genuine modernist." While that statement is completely correct, in the minds of everyone involved, does it mean anything? Do words have meaning? For the patron of their order, they certainly do!
Pope St. Pius X, in his encyclical for the ages, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), writes:
We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?
“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)The idea that somehow one can divorce words from their meanings (that ideas have no consequences) is very much a state of mind that the Society has cultivated for generations now, it permeates their clergy, religious and faithful, all of whom have logically adopted this line of thought.
A number of ideas flow forth from this school of thought - none of which are Catholic:
- The "Roman Authorities" ≠ The Pope, or the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth
- Modernist ≠ heretic
- Magisterium ≠ current members of the hierarchy whom they consider valid
- Newchurch ≠ false church
- Conciliarism ≠ false religion
- Bastard rite/Illegitimate rite ≠ false/non-Catholic worship
- Canonizations ≠ infallible proclamations of the Roman Catholic Church
My dear Fr. de Cacqueray, during the scriptural episode you mentioned, while the apostles were afraid, they were not poking holes in the ship or bringing water on board. Your astonishing failure to identify false shepherds continues to lead many astray and into the waiting arms of the wolves: those preachers of a "new doctrine" that you rightly identified. We pray that in the new year the scales may drop from your eyes.