Declaration by Fr Fuchs



Fr. Martin Fuchs, SSPX


With a very heavy heart, I communicated to the Superior General my resignation from the Society St. Pius X on 30 December. In all eternity I will be grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre for the Catholic Faith and for the priesthood! With regret, however, I have had to realise in recent years that they have deviated bit by bit from the path laid out by him:


  1.  The “Te Deum” in thanksgiving to the Motu proprio in which the Tridentine Mass was inextricably linked with the mass of Paul VI and in which the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council was demanded. Up until recently one could read on the internet that at the Priory St. Pius X in Munich the ‘Holy Mass (in the extraordinary form)’ was offered. In the seminary I learnt that we read the mass in the Tridentine rite, there is no ordinary or extraordinary rite, this is a completely untenable construct of Pope Benedict XVI. He who talks of an extraordinary rite, consequently must have in mind and accept an ordinary rite, the new mass.


  2.  The gratitude for the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre said at a press conference in 1988: “So we are excommunicated by modernists, by people who would have been excommunicated by the preceding popes. What is this? We are condemned by people who have been condemned and who should be publicly condemned. That leaves us indifferent.” Archbishop Lefebvre always regarded the excommunication as null and void. But what is null and void does not need to be lifted. – Besides, with the lifting the injustice perpetrated against Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer continues to remain in force.


  3.  The willingness to negotiate with Rome, although Archbishop Lefebvre already laid out clearly and unequivocally under which conditions this should happen in future. “Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions and ask: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII. Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favour of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter Nr. 70)


  4.  The bringing forward of a practical arrangement without a doctrinal clean-up of the heresies of the Second Vatican Council. In a spiritual talk on 21 December 1984 the Archbishop said: “So the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters, it is to stay within the Church … inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That’s what matters to us. That’s what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue.”


  5.  Again and again I had to realise that no clear language was being spoken any more. So the second intention in the rosary crusade reads: “for the return of Tradition into the church…”. What is meant by “the church”? The Catholic Church as she was founded by Jesus Christ or the post-conciliar church? If it means the Catholic Church then no return is possible because Tradition is an integral part of the Catholic Church; if the post-conciliar church is meant then it is her who left Tradition. Then it is her who has to return to Tradition, not Tradition to the church.



These are the main reasons which have led to my decision. Despite warnings from the three auxiliary bishops, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galarreta, despite warnings from the Society of the Good Shepherd, despite the knowledge of the attitude of Pope Benedict XVI, where nothing would move forward without the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, the talks and negotiations were continued.

One might argue: “Our Superior General did not sign anything.” – But he would have been ready for an agreement, without having solved the doctrinal differences, as his letter from 17 June 2012 proves. They were ready for the worst, but Rome did not want it. – Trust in the Superiors is now somehow shaken, it is destroyed.


At this point, I thank with all my heart my dear faithful for all your prayers and sacrifices, with which you have supported my priestly ministry. Gladly I recommend myself also in future to your prayers,


Fr. Martin Fuchs

Jaidhof, 5 January, 2014

Boycott the Rosary Crusade


Catholics! Defend the Honour of Your Heavenly Mother!

Do not allow her name to be taken in vain once again!

Oppose the hypocrisy and deceit of yet another Menzingen ‘rosary crusade’!


We call upon all our readers, friends and supporters, and as many of the Catholic world as wish to please Heaven to boycott Menzingen’s latest bogus ‘rosary crusade’ and to spread the word amongst family, friends and Catholic acquaintances.


The Evidence:


1. Previous Rosary Crusades were an insult to the Mother of God. It is not only that they  brought evil in their wake, but that the evil was then blasphemously attributed to Our Blessed Lady. 

2007 – the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI relegates the Traditional Mass, (the Roman Rite of Mass) to a second place ‘extraordinary form’, behind the Novus Ordo which is said to be the ‘ordinary form,’ and claims that the Novus Ordo is in continuity with Tradition.Bishop Fellay declares that this was obtained by the Mother of God in answer to the prayers of the first Rosary Crusade.

2009 – Rome announces the “lifting” of the “excommunications” from the four SSPX Bishops. This is a falsehood, since both the SSPX and Rome know very well that no excommunication was ever really incurred to begin with, hence there is nothing to “lift”.What’s more, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer who also (supposedly) incurred the fictitious “excommunication” were completely forgotten and nowhere mentioned. Once again, Bishop Fellay claimed that this insulting lie was obtained by the Mother of God.

2012 – Timed to coincide with the end of the last Rosary Crusade, the already secretly planned sell-out deal with modernist Rome was intended to have been the miraculous “fruit” of this Rosary Crusade. In the end, however, it appeared to have been momentarily thwarted by one bishop, a handful of priests and some naughty laymen who would not sit down and be quiet.

2014 – ?


2. Heaven is not pleased by insincere, hypocritical, fraudulent prayers.

Whilst Bishop Fellay is making a show of publicly asking the faithful to pray for “the protection of the Traditional Apostolate”, he himself and his henchmen are the very ones causing the most harm to the Traditional Apostolate.

What sort of apostolates is he talking about? Let us take one example. In the Letter to Friends and benefactors which introduced this rosary crusade, Bishop Fellay says:

“In a world that is increasingly hostile to keeping the commandments of God, we must have a genuine concern for forming well-tempered souls who take their sanctification and salvation to heart.  This quite naturally leads us to give a great deal of attention to our schools and to their development. … Throughout the world, priests and religious are dedicating themselves to the magnificent task of Catholic education and teaching in more than one hundred institutions.”

Is he sincere or are these the smarmy words of a sly, cynical politician? Consider the fact that one of his “magnificent” schools openly promotes religious liberty. That another school in France published a prayer book which included the Luminous Mysteries. We could go on.

Elsewhere he says:

“At this time our dear priests are traveling through the world to minister to still more believers who discover us and call on us for help.  The priests…do not suffice for the missions that we have started. […] Oh Lord, give us priests!”

This from the man who has expelled so many priests in the last few years for standing up to his own tyranny, for sticking to the principles of the founder of the Society of St. Pius X, or even for as little as preaching a sermon against the general idea of compromise with one’s enemy (as in the case of Fr. Hewko).

There are many more examples, but even one would be bad enough. Making a public show of asking for something whilst at the same time working against that very same thing is not going to call down the blessing of God. Quite the contrary. Whatever the true intention behind this rosary crusade, it is not the one publicly stated.


3. The second intention is Accordist. Its wording has already been tampered with by various district superiors, in an attempt to hide that fact from their faithful.

Bishop Fellay’s first language is French, and he it was who annoucned the Rosary Crusade and its intentions. As given by DICI in the original French, the second intention is:

“Pour le retour de la Tradition dans lEglise”

(For the return of Tradition within the Church)

This version is what can be found in the original letter to friends and benefactors, on the French version of DICI, on the Swiss district website in French and on the German and Italian district websites in their respective languages (“für die Rückkehr der Tradition in der Kirche”; “Per il ritorno della Tradizione nella Chiesa”;).


However in the English speaking world, on the British, US and Asian district websites the second intention is being promoted as:

“For the return to Tradition within the Church”

which obscures the fact that what is being asked of the Virgin Mother of God is that “Tradition” (which in French is shorthand for the SSPX, all its apostolates and its allied religious communities) may return into the Church (as if it is not already in the Church!)

Worse still, the French district, although originally presenting the second intention as it was originally worded, have since re-worded it so as to make the French reflect the English wording, claiming that the second intention is:

“Pour le retour à la Tradition dans l’Eglise”

That this is something which has been done solely for the benefit of the faithful of the French district there can be no doubt, as evidenced by the fact that the original French version can still be seen on and on the Swiss District website. Furthermore, we learn that the Polish and South American districts have each come up with their own distinct wording of the second intention. The Polish District website is promoting a rosary crusade for:

“o uznanie praw Tradycji w Kościele”

(For the recognition of the rights of Tradition in the Church)

 Whereas the South American District is promoting a rosary crusade,

“Por el retorno de Roma a la Tradición católica”

(“For the return of Rome to Catholic Tradition”.)

So which is it? Aparrently there are now four separate rosary crusades. Clearly that last one sounds best, but the point is that is not the intention announced by Bishop Fellay. It is hardly surprising that various district superiors might feel the need to re-word Bishop Fellay’s intention, but that is merely another exercise in deceit.


For all the above reasons it is clear that any Catholic who wishes to do the Will of God, to please Heaven or to Honour the Blessed Virgin Mary can have no part in this initiative whatsoever. The SSPX has been cursed with disunity and blindness. Its priests do not agree with one another and find themselves having to be careful about what they say to whom, a thing unthinkable until fairly recently. This latest Rosary Crusade is a grave insult to Almighty God and to His Blessed Mother. It will call down from Heaven not a blessing but a curse, it will not delay or soften the chastisement but will hasten it, and although Bishop Fellay as the originator bears the most responsibility, it is incumbent upon each of us not to participate in such a serious insult to God. Furthermore, it is the clear Catholic duty of each of us to warn as many others a possible. In the meantime, pray for the survival of Tradition through the work of the Resistance and for the frustration of Bishop Fellay’s plans and those of his confederates.

Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us!




Monastery of the Holy Cross in Brazil Needs Financial Support

Dear friends benefactors of the Monastery of the Holy Cross


First of all we would like to wish them a holy and happy New Year.


Another year begins. Our Monastery lives as you know given the grace of God and the generosity of our benefactors. The Monastery is in desperate need of your help. We would like to count with you so that our ministry could accomplish with ease and good for all souls.


Donations in any amount are very important to us.


Via Paypal:


Count on our prayers,


In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,


Brother Antonio da Cruz, oblate.

Prayer to St. Michael – Longer Version

        Everyone is familiar with the Leonine prayers said after Low Mass, including the short prayer to St Michael.

         We would like to focus on a longer version of the St Michael prayer that has been approved by Pope Leo XIII, which we note is published in the 1957 Raccolta (Benzinger Brothers, taken from the 1950 official edition “Enchiridion Indulgentiarium – Preces et Pia Opera”), page 339 (section 446).


Recently we came across a version of the prayer that did not match the prayer referenced above.


The version that we came across is longer and contains the following sentence:


In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.


So, we wondered, why was the prayer quite different from the 1957 Raccolta?


We had learned that the St Michael’s prayer was composed by Pope Leo XIII and published in his Motu Proprio of September 23, 1888.  However, the Motu Proprio is not available on the Vatican website, so we were unable to verify what the original prayer stated.


We found the longer version of the prayer in two earlier editions of the Raccolta.


The 1910 Raccolta, 6th Edition, available here pg 195, Prayer #292.


The 1908 Raccolta (a friend provided us with a pdf – available here ), has the prayer on pg 264 Prayer #292.


There is also an article discussing it on the FSSP website


Note also that there is an even longer version of the prayer, but it is a prayer intended to be used by priests for exorcisms. This one is not recommended for the laity.


Our conclusion is that the prayer printed in the earlier editions of the Raccolta is likely to be closer to what was written by Pope Leo XIII. We ask: Why was the prayer shortened and why was the sentence italicized above left out of the later edition of the Raccolta?