Dear TIA,

A couple of months ago I sent the inquiry concerning your claim that the Fraternity of St. Peter were compromised, and you were kind enough to respond. Your response revealed that I had asked the question poorly. With your indulgence, I will make another attempt, hopefully clearer, to ask the question.

As you know I respect your sense of honor and justice, and it has been my experience that you are very careful to have clear documentation for the claims that you make. That is why I make the inquiry of you below. You provide documentation of compromise with regard to the Society of St. Pius X, there are pictures of Msgr. Wach, Superior of the Institute of Christ the King, concelebrating the Novus Ordo with Pope John Paul II and so on. I have never been able to find signed or corroborated evidence the Fraternity has compromised, but it seems that you have.

In Mr. Guimarães’ article of July 18, 2007 entitled Bird’s Eye View of the News, he refers to "... other compromised traditionalist institutes such as the Fraternity of St. Peter ..." My question revolves around this statement. What documentation does TIA have to demonstrate that the Fraternity of St. Peter has compromised? Of course, there are copies of unsigned documents floating around and stories of individual priests in the Fraternity demonstrating their personal corroboration and even collaboration with the revolution in the Church (I could tell a few first hand stories myself), as well as very unfortunate statements by a Superior General that was forced on the Fraternity by the Hierarchy.

But what of documented compromise? Are there any copies of signed documents, corroboration from the founders or leaders of the Fraternity that they signed documents that compromise, pictures of them doing something compromising - anything?

Thank you for your indulgence in this request for information!

     In Jesu et Maria,

     J.S.

The Editor responds:

Dear Mr. J.S.,

Thank you for your consideration and kind words.

Three things should be established to properly answer your question:

1. If we are on the same page regarding what is a compromise;
2. The points in which this compromise has been made;
3. How to prove that the Fraternity St. Peter did compromise.

I will address the three issues in brief.

1. At TIA we consider that any traditionalist or conservative priest who, in order to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, accepts the new doctrines of Council Vatican II and the reforms that proceeded from it, including the New Mass, has compromised with Progressivism, which is the heir of Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X as “the synthesis of all heresies.”

2. This compromise has normally been made by signing the protocol of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is the organ of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charged of dealing with traditionalist and conservative priests who want to say the Tridentine Mass.

This protocol has four points:

1. Acceptance of the doctrinal validity and legitimacy of Vatican II;
2. Acceptance of the validity and legitimacy of the New Mass;
3. The commitment to never raise a public debate about items A and B;
4. Submission to the local Ordinary, that is, the Bishop or Archbishop.

By signing this protocol a priest receives permission from the Vatican to say the Tridentine Mass. It is called the celebret [it may be celebrated]. Then the priest has to find a Bishop who permits him to say the Tridentine Mass in his Diocese. Without the celebret no Bishop allows a priest to say the Tridentine Mass.

To these four demands, a fifth one was included by way of the facts: In order to prove that those priests really have no doubts about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass, many Bishops demand that they say at least one New Mass a year. Such demand was confirmed, now in writing, by Pope Benedict XVI in his Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum § i.l. (text here)

3. Now, how can it be proved that the Fraternity St. Peter has accepted these five conditions? One need only consider that they received permission from the Ordinaries of the places where they exercise their ministry. The permission is itself proof of compromise, in my opinion. Indeed, if any Bishop would allow a priest of FSP to say a Tridentine Mass without prior agreement to these conditions, the Prelate would jeopardize his career, which is what the greater majority of the Bishops care about most.

Does TIA have a copy of a written document of the Ecclesia Dei in which the superior of the FSP signed an official commitment to those demands? No. Does TIA have a copy of a written document in which each of the priests of FSP accepted those conditions? No. We don’t have one, and we have never tried to obtain one, because we believe that such documents are not necessary to prove their compromise. It is obvious to us.

However, if you will only be convinced of such compromise if you have a written document in hand, I can try to help you.

Let me imagine that you have a son or a nephew who is entering a FSP seminary. I would suggest you to write to the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the Vatican something along these lines:

“Dear Msgr. X,

“I have a son (or nephew) who is entering the Fraternity of St. Peter seminary, and I am in doubt whether this congregation fully accepts Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.

“I would like to hear from you clarifying this point so that I can decide how to orient the future of my son (or nephew).”

I suppose that after a while you will receive a written answer to this request. If this happens, you will have your written document, and I would have been of some assistance to you, as I wish.

     Cordially,

     A.S. Guimarães

Follow us

  The Motu Proprio, after the Emotions

  Rifan, Quo Primum and the New Mass

  Bishop Rifan’s Betrayal A Lesson Not To Be Forgotten

  New Mass in Latin

  Quo Primum and Novus Ordo

  The Novus Ordo Mass Broke the Identity of the Church

Related Works of Interest