As TIA has promised its readers, today it posts Fr. Basilio Méramo’s reply to his expulsion by Bishop Bernard Fellay. Many accusations were made against him, and he presents a strong defense, appealing the sentence to Eternal Rome. It is a manly defense, elevated and very worthy of reading.
The principal point of his letter and the best thrust in his defense/counter-attack is the revelation of the 2001 statement of Bishop Fellay affirming that already at that time he accepted 95% of Vatican Council II. Since it is well known that the SSPX superior has often said the opposite, it becomes evident that the Bishop is duplicitous – a fact Fr. Méramo does not hesitate to stress.
In this counter-charge he includes all four SSPX Bishops. With the supposition that Fellays’s declaration that 95% of Vatican II would be accepted by the directors, he analyzes the consequences in order to demonstrate that his expulsion is unjust.
This sentence of expulsion is a good example of how the SSPX heads are “cleaning” its ranks, sweeping out any priest who takes a true position of resistance. It seems the house is being prepared to receive new owners - and everything needs to be arranged according to their taste…
I hope Fr. Méramo, as well as Fr. Abrahamowicz - also expelled in February - will not fall into the temptation of sede-vacantism, but will fight as errant knights against Progressivism wherever it shows its face inside the Church. Resistance means non-acceptance of error, as well as the denunciation of and opposition to all teachings of the Conciliar Popes that are contrary to the perennial Magisterium and traditions of the Church. But it is not more than that. We do not have authority to judge the juridical status of a Pope who falls into heresy. I pray Our Lady Seat of Wisdom to help him continue holding the correct position at this difficult crossroads in his life. I also pray for all those members of the SSPX clergy or laity who are facing similar perplexities.
Below are the main excerpts of Fr. Basilio Méramo’s last letter. TIA translated it from the Spanish. The subtitles are ours. The complete text of the original is here.
Letter to Bishop Fellay Replying to My Expulsion from the SSPX
Fr. Basilio Méramo
On April 7, I received a hand-delivered notification of my expulsion - a thing to be expected after two canonical admonitions. It is, let me say at once, unjust and invalid both juridically and theologically since the two admonitions were per se inconsistent, and were immediately acknowledged as such by me in my two letters of response.
I appeal to Eternal Rome against the decree of my expulsion, according to Canon Law (can 647 § 2 n. 4), which suspends any decree. Thus, juridically my expulsion would be suspended, lacking juridical effect until the appeal is judged, that is, indefinitely. Indeed, this is because today Eternal Rome has been invaded by unworthy prelates who do not fulfill their duty of confirming the faithful in the Faith.
On the contrary, they corrupt and prostitute the Faith, cult and morals, and violate the truth, whose rule they abhor like antichrists. … Never has a greater abomination and desolation been seen in the holy place. They promote adoration of themselves as God, invoking the divine power, which they pervert and invert. For this reason Msgr. Lefebvre said that “Rome is occupied by antichrists” in his June 30, 1988 declaration. Ironically, the topic [of my expulsion] remains suspended until the parousia of Christ.
Notwithstanding, it falls to me to bear with patience and integrity this injury, remaining firm as a Catholic priest in the front lines against Modernism in the Antichrist-Rome. This is what Msgr. Lefebvre in that same document called the modernist and liberal Rome that persecutes the holy and infallible Catholic Tradition. It is to this Rome that you, along with the direction of SSPX and the three Bishops, cowardly deliver us under the appearance of a making a good action - [throwing yourselves] into the arms of Benedict XVI who was able to tempt you into a skillful trap.
Open arms to those who accept Vatican II
Accepting the Council is accepting the French Revolution in the Church
Now, if you permit me, I will go on to refute the most serious of your fulminating but absurd charges in their theological-doctrinal context.
I was charged with making false and grave accusations against the general superior of the SSPX, of causing serious damage by opposing him, of being obstinate, rebelling against authority, causing scandal, etc.
I would like to know, Most Reverend Bishop, what exactly are these false accusations you said I have made. My accusations are grave, I agree, but not false. If falseness exists, it cannot be justly said to be on my part, but rather - forgive me - on yours, since you have been using a double language for a long time. Not because you are bilingual, but because of your great dilemma: How to enter into an accord without allowing the treason to be noticed, covering it under a false appearance of good?
Suenens: "Vatican II was the 1789 in the Church"
How is it possible to accept what you stated eight years ago (in an interview to the daily La Liberté on May 11, 2001, published by DICI n. 6, on May 18, 2001), that is, that “we go along with about 95% of the Second Vatican Council,” without being a liberal and modernist? The liberals and modernists themselves acknowledge that Council Vatican II was “the 1789 in the Church,” according to Card. Suenens, that is, the French Revolution of 1789 inside the Church.
Or as then Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) said: “The problem of the Council was to assimilate the values of centuries of liberal culture” (Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Dethroned Him, introduction). Thus, it is clear that whoever accepts 95% of Vatican Council II, accepts 95% of the French Revolution inside de Church, and also assimilates centuries of liberal culture in the Church. And 95% is a very high percentage.
Then comes the great question: What are you saying when you affirm that you are going to dialogue with Rome on doctrinal issues? What are you going to discuss? The remaining 5%? This alone bluntly demonstrates the parody, deception, lie and falsity [of your position], all executed with the great appearance of seriousness while in fact everything was becoming increasingly rotten.
No longer a resistance, but a pact with Masonry and Ecumenism
What, then, remains of the SSPX, of resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle … [as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved].
Msgr. Lefebvre denounced the pact of non-aggression between the Church and Masonry veiled under the names of aggiornamento and openness to the world (cf. Un Évèque Parle, p. 97). You, however, are willing to enter into that pact. Regarding such pact he adds: “Further, the Church no longer accepts being the one true religion, the only road of eternal salvation” (ibid. p. 97).
Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) recognizes the false religions as extraordinary roads of salvation, as one can note in this text that, despite its conservative bent, is deeply heretical: “The values of the non-Christian religions have been excessively emphasized to the point that some theologians present them as ordinary roads of salvation, instead of extraordinary” (Informe sobre la Fé, BAC Popular, Madrid, p. 220).
Acceptance of a schismatic Conciliar Church
Further, Msgr. Lefebvre stressed that “in the eyes of the Roman authorities as well as our own, this Council represents a new Church that they call the ‘Conciliar Church’” (ibid., p. 97). He also affirmed that this Council was schismatic. Notwithstanding, you can uphold 95% of it. Doing so, you become 95% schismatic.
Here are his words: “In view of an external and internal analysis of Vatican II, that is, analyzing its texts and the details of this Council, we believe that we can affirm it is a schismatic council because it rejects Tradition and breaks with the Church of the past. It is by the fruits that one judges the tree” (ibid. p. 97).
Thus, we have the paradoxical and absurd situation of you accepting 95% of the schismatic and apostate post-conciliar New Church. Hence you would be 95% schismatic and apostate – not an insignificant percentage! And you still pretend to be a faithful and worthy successor of Msgr. Lefebvre. If this is not falseness and treason, then I don’t know what it is.
Nefarious consequences of an accord
Msgr. Lefebvre considers that “all those who cooperate in the application of this inversion of values, accepting and adhering to the new ‘conciliar Church’ … enter into schism” (ibid. p. 98). Yet today you intend to reach an accord with this schismatic new conciliar Church.
Further, you want the SSPX to be recognized and regularized by modernist Rome, which practices an apostate ecumenism. This is how Msgr. Lefebvre described it: “Those who, motivated by laicism and apostate ecumenism, either minimize or deny these [traditional] riches can only condemn these Bishops [of SSPX]. Doing so, they confirm their schism and their separation from Our Lord and His Reign” (Itinéraire spiritual, p. 9).
Ecumenism represents the universal apostasy
Yes, it is an apostate ecumenism - this is the language of Scriptures, which calls it the Great Apostasy, that is, the universal or ecumenical apostasy. Yet you would bring us closer to this ecumenical apostasy. You want, then, to make us adulterous and schismatic, for according to Msgr. Lefebvre’s words: “This apostasy transforms those members into adulterers and schismatics, opposed to tradition and in rupture with the past of the Church, and hence with the Church that remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. Those who continue to be faithful to the true Church are the object of savage and continuous persecutions” (ibid. pp 70-71).
Duplicity also in the reply to Benedict’s letter
In his letter to the Bishops of March 10, 2009, Benedict XVI, after referring to the “remission of the excommunication” called his invitation to the four Bishops of the SSPX to return as if they were prodigal sons a gesture of goodness and paternal mercy.
However, he clearly and explicitly reminded them that “they do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church,” given that they lack canonical mission or status. Their suspension a divinis remains in effect as long as they do not accept Vatican Council II.
A smile that expresses the absence of obstacles
Benedict XVI spelled it out in clear terms …: “This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature, and concern primarily the acceptance of the Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. … The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society.”
With this we see the objective of modernist and apostate Rome. But you and the other three Bishops of SSPX tell us that you are going to Rome to preach the truth and convert it, etc. … On March 12, 2009 - only two days later - in your quick response to Benedict XVI’s letter, you reached the apex [of shame] when you used his words to say: “Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar teaching.” This statement shows - forgive me, Bishop Fellay - your duplicity of language, a modernist and liberal language that manifests your falseness and betrayal.
My expulsion is an abuse of authority that only favors the enemies
Therefore, Bishop Fellay, it is absurd and unjust for you to expel me from SSPX for publicly and openly resisting your sinister politics of merging with [Vatican II], the landmark of the New Conciliar Church and its schismatic and apostate ecumenism. In an abusive exercise of your authority, compromising with the worst and principal enemies of the Church, you dare to falsely and injuriously accuse me of being a rebel, insubordinate, disobedient, obstinate, scandalous, subversive, in need of correction, harmful and dangerous to the common good of the SSPX. I could launch these same accusations against you to your face, but [I will not because] the Divine Judge will do so when He will come to judge the living and the dead. I leave it for then, when I expect to meet you.
However, I pray for you, that God will forgive you because you know not what you do – either with the SSPX or with me, whom you throw into the street like a vile delinquent – the same fate suffered by so many priests who opposed the innovations at the time of the Council. You expel me at the age of 55, after having giving myself with a complete and generous commitment to the service of the SSPX, which I served for 29 years, leaving behind everything, renouncing everything to serve Holy Mother Church in the SSPX, resisting and combating that apostate and heretical Modernism which today you lead us toward – softly and sweetly, but surely.
A New SSPX is being shaped in the likeness of the New Church
Today you expel me for a New Society [SSPX], recycled at the feet of the New Conciliar Church. I have never belonged, and I never want to belong to this New SSPX and New Church. I will continue to be part of the true Church and the true SSPX. You expel me, better said, you excommunicate me from your New SSPX, but I don’t care, just as Msgr. Lefebvre didn’t care when he was excommunicated from the New Church. This punishment, far from being a stigma or affront, is a true mark of decoration and proof of orthodoxy.
He was not like you, the four Bishops, who shamefully asked the excommunication to be lifted before the eyes of the world, refusing to bear the weight of the cross, considering it an ignominy. Christ did nothing of this sort. He did not step down from His Cross (the greatest instrument of shame and suffering). He preferred to die crucified, ridiculed, spat upon, scourged, stripped of His clothes and abandoned by all. This is how He founded His Divine Church, leaving her as inheritance His Blood shed on the Cross.
The apocalyptic significance of accepting the New Mass
This inheritance signed with His Divine Blood, His whole Body immolated, is the Holy Mass. The same Mass that today you do no longer recognize as being the one, exclusive Mass when you accept the spurious, bastard New Mass … considering it the legitimate and principal (ordinary) rite, while the Tridentine Mass becomes an occasional (extraordinary) rite of the New Church, which is – or will be – the see of the Antichrist and the False Prophet, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted: “Rome will lose the faith and become the see of the Antichrist.”
The stripped altar of the Novus Ordo Mass
Let him who has eyes see, and let him who has ears listen.
Ironically, today you chop off my head, without remembering that it was thanks to my intervention in the General Chapter of 1994 asking that Fr. Schmidberger not be re-elected that you accepted the position of General Superior. Indeed, for two years he had been arranging everything for his reelection. He was at the very point of achieving his aim when surprisingly, contrary to his plans, you were elected. I stood up to tell you to accept that position as a cross, following the example of St. Pius X …
Association of this punishment with the Passion of the Church
This entire apocalyptical drama the Church is living is prophetically encompassed in the Lenten liturgy in a special and solemn way during Holy Week and in the Sacred Triduum, which shows us the desolate Church, the stripped altar and the empty tabernacle. It is a clear depiction of what happened 2,000 years ago with the Passion and Death of Christ. It is also a symbol of what would happen to the Church, the mystical body of Chirst, during the apocalyptic end times …
I ask God to forgive you, Msgr., along with the Chapter that - like a Sanhedrin - condemned me and expelled me. It reminds me of what the then elect people did to Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the words of the liturgy: “The impious ones said, let us destroy the just man for he is against our works” (5th antiphony of Lauds of Holy Saturday).
But the words of the Prophet also come to mind: “The Lord God is my helper, therefore I am not confounded: and I have set my face as a hard stone, knowing that I will not be confounded” (Is 50:7).
Thus, since my alternative was either to be silent in a vile silence before what I see or to clearly and firmly speak out at the price of my expulsion, I fulfilled my priestly duty without betraying God or my conscience. Now, my only choice is to wander carrying my head in my hands, as St. Denis did before he fell and died.
I bid you farewell during this tragic and expressive Sacred Tridium of Holy Week, filled with mentions of what would happen to the Church in the last apocalyptic times, which is, nonetheless, the necessary prelude for the future Easter and Resurrection.
Fr. Basilio Méramo
Orizaba, Good Friday, April 9, 2009
Posted April 22, 2009
Related Topics of Interest
French Capuchin Publicly Challenges Agreement with Rome
Fellay’s Decision to Merge Confronted by Intellectual Priest
Awakening from a False Obedience
A Bold Show of Dissatisfaction in the SSPX Ranks
Rumblings from the SSPX Pews
The SSPX Acceptance of Vatican II
Fellay to Guimarães: Your Critique Is a Delirium
Bishop Fernando Rifan's Betrayal
Infallibilty in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church
Reasons for Resistance and Disobedience
|Related Works of Interest