Open Letter to Father le Roux

In your November 10, 2013 letter to Friends & Benefactors,(Fr leRoux November 2013) you are writing about authority and about Tradition, and unless Traditionalists submit to authority, they will become revolutionaries who will subvert all things Catholic.


In the first four paragraphs, you say that subversion and revolution are contrary to the wishes of God, and you use the French Revolution to make your point. Your readers will recall the comparison made by Archbishop Lefebvre and assume that you are attacking Vatican II and Conciliar Rome.


Then, in paragraph eight, a surprise is thrown in: “For the last months this subtle temptation of distrust of authority has been poisoning the ranks of the defenders of the tradition of the Church”. Since the SSPX has always considered themselves the defenders of Tradition, you are therefore clearly attacking those who resist the new orientation of the SSPX.


Further, your letter implies that Bishop Fellay has authority to which we must submit and that those who refuse to do so are subversive and offensive to God. However, Bishop Fellay has very limited authority: he is the head of a pious union of priests and thus has no real authority. Further, as a priest and bishop, with respect to the laity, he has only that authority which we grant to him through supplied jurisdiction.


Therefore, the Superiors of the SSPX are greatly exceeding their authority by refusing Sacraments to parishioners who express opinions contrary to the Superiors. Further, since the SSPX does not currently have proper canonical status, the Superior General cannot legitimately expel members. He could not even legitimately refuse access to any Superior from the General Chapter, so the exclusion of Bishop Williamson should be considered as invalidating the General Chapter, a true act of subversion that you have failed to refer to in your letter.


Further, among some SSPX faithful there is the naïve notion that the SSPX, once given a proper canonical status, will then reform Rome from within. If the SSPX priests, even from within, cannot correct the thinking of their superiors without being labeled as subversive, how could the inferior (SSPX) reform the superior (Rome)?


Your letter raises many questions. I will limit myself to three:


Why do you compare the Resistance priests and faithful to Monsignor de Talleyrand? Are they worshipping at the “altar of power”? What power are they seeking?


Is it not “treason” to expel priests precisely for what they were ordained to do: teach and defend the Catholic Faith?


Ought we submit to Bishop Fellay’s authority when he declares that Vatican II enlightens the life of the Church, that the new Mass is legitimately promulgated, that the NO Sacraments are valid, etc.?  This is clearly contrary to the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre and contrary to Catholic common sense.


In your letter you refer to “a new formal attack” that is about to be levelled at the “last vestiges of Tradition”. I am surprised at your fearful attitude when on December 28, 2012, in Canada, Bishop Fellay was optimistic about the future: ‘… we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming’.


I do agree with you that it is “high time to cease this suicidal internal war” started by Bishop Fellay against the largely unsuspecting SSPX priests and adherents and fuelled by fear of punitive action directed against all outspoken individuals.


We are aware of the methods the SSPX headquarters are using when they find someone who disagrees with them. Small wonder that those who are still within the SSPX must hide and be silent – and you call them “secretive”, “anonymous” and “cowardly”! Fear and coercion are the tools of revolutionaries (today’s SSPX); fear and coercion are not the tools of the Resistance!


The Resistance is not using revolutionary methods. We are doing all we can in order to warn others of the dangers coming not so much from the Novus Ordo (we all know by now what to expect from Rome) but especially from the SSPX which has secretly morphed into an Indult entity that has nothing in common with the work started by Archbishop Lefebvre. (The novel The Stepford Wives comes to mind – a rather chilling comparison to what is happening inside the SSPX. No, I am not recommending it – read rather Spiritual Journey.)


Father, the charges that you raise in your letter were levelled at Archbishop Lefebvre. The Resistance should therefore be proud to be equally treated!


Your letter was given to me by a friend in Tradition. She noted the surprising number of harsh words that she understood to be levelled against the Resistance: subversion, Revolution, perversity, infiltrating, weapon, devil, scandalous, satanic, violent, hatred. These words are found in the first two paragraphs alone!


In the past, SSPX superiors never used to write letters of this sort! They used to write pastoral letters in which they warned us of the dangers of Conciliar Rome and they gave clear and relevant examples to make their point. But those days are over.


There is a new orientation being followed today. Paragraph five contains a most revealing statement about this new SSPX orientation: “Sometimes, when the authority in charge ceases to be faithful to its role of guardian of the common good, it falls to the defenders of Tradition to remind authority of its role and to do this even publicly, thus respecting the very nature of authority while rejecting the secretive, anonymous, cowardly methods of the subversive.”


The Conciliar Church, by adopting the new Teachings, the new Mass, the new Sacraments, the new Code of Canon Law, does not only sometimes not guard the common good, but rather the Conciliar Church never guards the common good!


By the above statement and especially by the words “sometimes” and “remind” (could you have selected a weaker verb?), you have proved that the SSPX has joined the ranks of other defectors of Tradition (Campos, FSSP, etc.).


The title of your letter to Friends & Benefactors should read “Subversion Of Tradition”. And this subversion was effected by Menzingen, not by the Resistance.


Your letter was mailed to my friend possibly because many years ago she supported financially and with her prayers a seminarian who has since become a priest. Today he is in danger of losing his faith due to the changed orientation of the SSPX.


My friend was one of the founding members of the SSPX Toronto chapel. She dedicated over two decades of her life to the support of the priests and the needs of the chapel. Today, she no longer supports the SSPX. She now supports the Resistance. She has kept the Faith.


Further, it is unworthy of the SSPX to include a brochure to raise money by advertising a talk by Dr White to give the illusion that he supports the SSPX. Dr White has been a faithful supporter of Bishop Williamson for many years, and his talk in Virginia on the 25th Anniversary of the Episcopal Consecrations on June 29, 2013 gave a morale boost to the Resistance.


For a future fund-raising project, you might consider using Dr White’s talk given in Virginia on Sophocles’ Philoctetes. The opening part is a highly entertaining commentary on the newly rebranded SSPX. It is sure to be a crowd-pleaser!!


Lastly, we have learned of the expulsion of Father Girouard:  “Another head has rolled off the Menzingen guillotine” (Father’s own words). This is another example of the subversion of Tradition by the new SSPX. It is tragic that the SSPX is continuing to self-destruct. It is a blessing and joy to have Father Girouard in the Resistance where he can remain faithful and form future generations of Traditional Catholics.


With my very best wishes, in Jesus and Mary,


Sister Constance


2 thoughts on “Open Letter to Father le Roux”

  1. In my humble opinion, a priest that denies the sacraments based on whether the person has opinions contrary to those of the current Superiors, is commiting sin. An organization that not only tolerates, but fosters this behaviour is not behaving as Catholic.
    Only reason to deny sacrament of communion is because the person is on sin, otherwise the Superior would be abusing his power, and commiting sin.


Leave a Comment