Misleading Angelus Press Blog Article

The article is here:


and is reproduced here:


The Angelus Press Blog article says:

“The acronym GREC is French in origin. Its meaning in English translation is a study group for Catholics.

A book published fairly recently in France by Nouvelles Editions Latines traces the origins and development and topics discussed in the study sessions between Traditional and Conciliar Catholics. The text was written by a French priest, Fr. Michel Lelong, and contains many contributions by other participants.”

However, the Angelus Press Blog does not give the title of the book, Pour la necessaire reconciliation.

In other words, GREC is not just any study group, it was designed to get the SSPX regularized with concilliar Rome. As the Angelus Press Blog article said “When the official discussions began between the Roman theologians and those of the Society, the GREC meetings no longer served any useful function, and so ended towards the end of 2011.”

This implies that the study group is benign, so there is no real need to read the book, and since the discussions with Rome were held, GREC was disbanded and is no longer relevant. However, this merely reproduces the argument that since there is no agreement, we have no concern. It supports the new direction of the Neo-SSPX, but we are asked to look the other way.

For more information about GREC, see

For your reading pleasure, you might like to review this list of books by Fr. Michel Lelong:

De la priere du Christ au message du Coran

Deux fidélités, une espérance

J’ai rencontre l’Islam – Preface par Ali Merad

Prêtre de Jésus-Christ parmi les musulmans : Mémoires [Broché]

L’Islam et L’occide

Jean Paul II et L’islam

L’Eglise catholique et l’islam

Caledon Miracle Working Priest

Due to a computer error, our original post is lost.


This replacement post contains a link to a file containing his story with the preface and footnotes added.




Father Francis McSpiritt


An account of his life can be found here:  macdonell full

The posted article on Father’s life was in a book written by an Orangeman, but as the author stated, this gives an unbiased account. Given the numerous miracles described, I wonder how many more a Catholic might have described.

Interesting also that the local Bishop asked him to stop the miracles so as not to offend Protestants, and when Father continued, he was re-assigned to a more remote parish – sound familiar?

Father had a reputation for sticking to spiritual matters and avoiding much of earthly pleasures. Human respect was not a failing of his.

He did cure Protestants, but sometimes did assign a penance of joining the Church.

The anniversary of his death is August 14th and would be a good date for a pilgrimmage. In 2013, my wife, daughter and a family friend visited his gravesite. Nothing was planned by the local parish, and there was no evidence of other visitors.

His gravesite can be found here:  MW Grave Site

and looks like this:




Perhaps readers who are not in the area can make a spiritual visit.

If Fr McSpiritt were alive today, I think the Resistance would have another priest.


Great Conference from Fr. Chazal

Father Chazal gives a conference in India, mentions the state of the Resistance, discusses how the hybrid Mass will be introduced in Germany and the possibility of two more priests from the Phillipines.



Fr. Jean Violette Used Yesterday Today’s Arguments of the Resistance

My my how times have changed.  Below is a sermon given by Fr. Patrick Girouard on August 4, 2013 in Aldergrove, B.C.  In it he reads a district letter written by Fr. Jean Violette in December 2003 when Fr. Violette was SSPX District Superior of Canada.  Fr. Violette used the same arguments then against Fr. Aulagnier, who was expelled from the SSPX by Bishop Fellay for wanting a canonical agreement with Rome, that the Resistance now uses against Bishop Fellay and the SSPX leaders.  But where is Fr. Violette’s voice to be heard today?  Nowhere!  Rather, he has chosen to follow his superior, regardless.


This is another piece of evidence of the betrayal of the memory and mission of Archbishop Lefebvre on the part of Bishop Fellay and company.


For those who haven’t already, join the Resistance!  It is in the Resistance where the spirit of the Archbishop lives.


Here is the link to Fr. Girouard’s website:




Here is a link to the letter:





Grave Problem with SSPX Policy of Being Okay to a Canonical Regularization without Rome’s Conversion

Bishop Bernard Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 is the worst act of His Excellency as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. With this Declaration, he was willing to sell the farm to Modernist Rome; however, for some reason or another, Rome refused. Against those of the Resistance who claim that the mindset of this Declaration has infected the SSPX from the top down (and it certainly has) and therefore one cannot remain silent, many priests and faithful who remain within the SSPX and refuse to speak out against the Declaration counterclaim that the Declaration has not become SSPX policy; therefore, there is no need to speak out. Since principle seems to be so important to these priests and faithful (and it should very well be), let us then look at what has indeed become official SSPX policy.


The SSPX General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012 states that the SSPX superiors have “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization”. The Statement itself does not outline these necessary conditions; rather, Fr. Christian Thouvenot, Secretary General of the SSPX, sent an internal letter to all SSPX priests in which the necessary conditions (and unnecessary conditions???) were outlined. The first condition is as follows:


“Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition ; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences.”


This necessary condition is the only one directly related to doctrine; hence, it is the most important. With this first condition, the SSPX is basically willing to set its doctrinal differences with Rome aside, so long as Rome gives the SSPX the right to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith. The first fundamental problem with this position (while overlooking the fact that to ask for the right to do what is commanded by God is itself nonsensical) is that doctrine here is not given primacy; hence, what we have is a non-Catholic variant of ecumenism. The second fundamental problem is that since the SSPX does not demand from Rome the same as part of the agreement (that is, to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith), contained within this position is an implicit but intrinsic proposition that Rome has the right to teach those errors it currently holds; hence, what we have is a non-Catholic variant of religious liberty. These two problems reduce the Faith to the level of opinion as is evident within the conciliar church and in its relations with the world. Unity for the sake of unity, whether intended or not, becomes the primary focus; however, a unity not based on the Faith is not of God.


Given the serious flaws with the first necessary condition, the SSPX leaders and the priests who explicitly consent to it are co-operating in objective grave sin against the Faith, at least on the level of principle. For those SSPX priests who remain silent, we can conclude without rash judgement that they let the SSPX leaders speak for them; therefore, they too co-operate in objective grave sin.


Let us pray and hope that good-willed priests come to realize the grave position of their society’s official policy and take the necessary course of action, that is, to speak out against it no matter the consequences.