top of page
Âncora 1

The Catholic Resistance

by Arsenius


What has come to be called Resistance, it seems to me that not everyone has a precise idea of the real notion of what it consists of. It seems to me that many think that it is a group of bishops, priests and lay people who voluntarily left the Fraternity of Saint Pius X as “free shooters”.


It is convenient to oppose the following clarifying facts to this: some Fraternity priests began to make public criticisms of their superior for the pro-agreement position he began to express. Other members of the Fraternity (including three bishops) did the same, either in private or in public. Friendly religious communities also expressed their disagreement. The result was that, in keeping with his accordist purpose, he expelled from the Fraternity those who publicly criticized him (especially one of the holy bishops by Dom Lefebvre) and rejected those who, not belonging to the Fraternity, also made public his repudiation. Among these I mention in a special way the monasteries of Nossa Senhora da Fé and the one of Santa Cruz. Thus, what gave birth to the “Resistance” was Bishop Fellay's “scythe” and not the explicit will of the “Resistants” to separate.


Now, one might ask whether this public opposition was not reckless and/or disrespectful. I answer no, based on the doctrine of the Church and on history, teacher of life. We know that a superior can and, at times, must be publicly challenged if he endangers the faith and the salvation of souls. We also know that St. Paul did so with St. Peter; Dom Lefebvre with HH Paul VI and HH John Paul II, not to mention many more examples that I could add. And does Bishop Fellay's attitude jeopardize the faith and the salvation of souls? Certainly, because the example of what has already happened with the communities that united with modernist Rome shows the danger that this approach means: progressive increase of a new mentality, which is not of God. In other words, we are facing a problem of grave importance, which is not to be taken lightly.


Another objection could be raised: after the first reactions, there were others that did not result in the expulsion of those who opposed the “new policy of Menzingen”. I think that the answer to that would be a similarity between the attitudes of HH Paul VI and HH John Paul II towards Tradition, and those of Bishop Fellay towards the “resistant”. Let me explain: Paul VI, to impose the conciliar reforms, used punishment, because the members of the Church still had a very traditional mind. But in the pontificate of John Paul II, in which the Second Vatican Council was already well accepted, it was possible to try to “absorb” the “against”, without any danger to the stability of the Conciliar Church. So, now that Dom Fellay must be feeling secure in the pursuit of his intent, he does not expel one or another who rise up against him in the Brotherhood.


It still remains to be made clear that the legitimacy of the cause of the “Resistance” does not exempt members of the same who do not honor the “movement” to which they belong as they should. Our Lord Himself had already warned us that in His Church there would always be tares. Therefore, the existence of dissensions and similar things is not an argument against the attitude that we believe to be the most correct to be taken in the critical situation in which the Tradition family is going through, that is, publicly opposing what Bishop Fellay is doing.


A further reflection: if the “regularization” of the Fraternity takes place in a “unilateral” way, without any signature on it, this does not imply different consequences; the danger remains: the rapprochement with the progressives. And the presence of reactions without, however, being public and/or consequential in the facts, is destined for total disappearance: Vatican diplomacy is well aware of the effectiveness of the time factor: little by little it will silence all dissenting voices, by gradual death but infallible…


May God use these poor words of the last of His children to help some good soul who sought to clarify these points.


Mother of mercy, turn your merciful eyes to us!

Resistance is, therefore, an ark, a means of faithfully continuing the defense of the Catholic principles as always. We cannot sacrifice the truth under any circumstances. Non possumus!"

bottom of page