Saint Thomas Aquinas

Thursday, January 28, 2010

SSPX Group In Mexico Attacks FSSP Church.

Update. 1-30-10
I received some pictures after the graffiti was cleaned off of the walls outside the church. You can see where it all didn't come off.

I have just got word from a first hand source of a terrible act committed by an SSPX group in Mexico. The FSSP Chapel of St Peter Apostle in Guadalajara (The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) was asked to schedule a Mass for the conversion of those outside the Church, in an effort to promote true unity among all Christians. The Mass was called a Mass for the conversion of sinners outside the Church, to be followed by a rosary in reparation for false ecumenism. The SSPX however heard through the grapevine that an ecumenical Mass was going to take place and they jumped to false conclusions. As a result, the SSPX went ballistic, calling for a protest against the upcoming scheduled Mass at the FSSP chapel. A first hand witness from the FSSP parish notes, "We started hearing gossip about what people were saying about us. One man said at the Mass on Sunday, that the Pius X priest told his people to go to all these events to say the rosary in reparation for ecumenism." Apparently the FSSP assistant priest who is currently at the FSSP parish wrote two emails trying to clear up the confusion before any type of protest could be organized. One email was sent to the SSPX priest, the other to all the laity of the parish, telling them that it was not going to be an ecumenical service for the purpose of legitimizing all other Christian professions of faith outside the Catholic Church, but a Mass in reparation for false ecumenism, and praying for the  conversion of those outside the Catholic Church. These emails however were ignored by the SSPX priest, and what happened next is truly appalling. 


The SSPX laymen came to the FSSP church the morning before the Mass on Wednesday Jan 20th, 2010, and they spray painted the walls around the church! A first hand account wrote, "Ecumenismo no! Judas!" was spray painted in huge letters three times, almost all the way around, and one time on the side walk. One was in black and the others in red." Parishioners at the church then had to use gasoline to try and remove the graffiti from the walls and the sidewalk before Mass. That however was not the end of the malicious attack. Once again, a first hand account wrote, "We had arranged for the Choir to sing so we could have a High Mass, using the 'missa pro  Ecclesiae Unitate'. As Mass was beginning we could hear a lot of noise outside: there was a bunch of people and someone with a megaphone or loudspeaker saying the rosary and singing hymns as loud as they could." Apparently one of the FSSP priests then went outside to try and talk to the SSPX protesters, but to no avail. Others carried signs around the church which said, "Outside the Church there is no Salvation!" (in Spanish)." The protesters also handed out fliers to those around the FSSP church, which labeled them as being evil, and as being in support of false ecumenism. The FSSP priests are in complete dismay over the vandalism committed and public disturbance incited by this SSPX group.


We see here why little progress has been made over the years in fully reconciling the SSPX with the Catholic Church. It is incidents like these that make charitable headway almost impossible to take place.  The FSSP are officially sanctioned by the Church to lead the way in promulgating the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to the Catholic faithful. Some groups of the SSPX however, appear to have taken the FSSP as a threat to their communities. Some of the SSPX loath the fact that many people want to be in full communion with Rome. We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail, and that the talks will continue with success at a higher level in Rome. I also hope that the those in higher positions within the SSPX will acknowledge the injustice that has taken place here and put a swift stop to it.
Matthew Bellisario Jan 28th, 2010

34 comments:

Matthew Bellisario said...

Some people are wondering why this article took so long to be posted after the even happened. There are a couple of reasons. First, I had to verify that all of the facts that I had were true and accurate. It took a few days to verify the info from a first hand source from the actual parish in Mexico, and then we had to decide if we wanted to post it up on the blog or not.

The article is not intended to impede the reconciliation of the SSPX with the Rome. It is merely a news story, and yes everything was verified from the actual parish. It is my hope that the SSPX as a whole will fully reconcile with Rome, and I do not think that this event is a representation of the SSPX as a whole. I think that this is well established in the article. The article only refers to this particular group. Yet the events of one particular group can often make it hard on the rest. At any rate, I hope this clears up some confusion.

May God bless and keep you,
Mattthew Bellisario

Caleb said...

If you "verified all the facts," then tell us what city in Mexico this occurred. Big country, Mexico. What are the names of the SSPX and FSSP priests? When you contacted them, what did they have to say for themselves? What is the name of your "first-hand source"? Did you find any corroborating sources? Surely, this was reported in local media. Can you link us to the Mexican papers? I expect that my comment will not be published and that you will not provide a sniff of the info I am requesting.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Guadalajara

Edgar said...

Caleb, My name is Edgar Fernandez, I am the President of Una Voce Guadalajara and even though I was not the source for this news article I can corroborate that it is 100% accurate as I was present at the mass (a beautiful missa cantata) and I saw with my own eyes everything that is described here. To answer your questions Fr. Puga from the FSSPX was the one leading the mob with a loud speaker and Fr. Romanoski tried to talk with the people who told him that they didn't want to speak with him.

Me said...

I can also verify the grafitti incident as I arrived at the parish that morning and saw "Ecumenismo no! Judas!" Written in black spray paint and then again in red spray paint across the front gate of the church. I attend San Pedro's and I was very disappointed to see such vandalism occur. My husband sang at the mass and also went out to talk to the protesters but they ignored him and yelled louder. To their credit there were a few in the group that were also disappointed with the direction the protest took and they went inside to pray at mass. If the rest had only gone inside and listened to the sermon.

The Indentured Servant Girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Paco said...

I was there, trying to help the priest subdue the crowd during the Mass. I can confirm it is all accurate. I can also answer questions, if you are interested.

-Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo
Ite ad Thomam Blog:
www.iteadthomam.blogspot.com

Colin Michael Fry said...

Do you know if anyone happened to take any pictures?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Thanks for the confirmations! Its not like I have nothing better to do with my time than to sit around making up stories about Mexican churches and the like. I would not have posted it unless I received it from a reliable source.

mailvh said...

With everyone having video/camera phones, were there any pictures taken? I don't believe anyone answered this question. thank you

Don Paco said...

Except for me and Father, who went out a couple of times to try to calm down the crowd, everyone else was inside of the church hearing Mass. So I doubt anyone took pictures of the protest itself (I don't own a cell phone and Father's cell phone does not have a camera). Although we could all hear the crowd outside, apart from us two only a handful of faithful actually saw the crowd because we were inside and they were outside. The crowd was out there from the beginning of Mass until the Sanctus.

Don Paco said...

Father's sermon is now posted here:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/02/sermon-given-night-of-sspx-protest.html

Tiberius said...

It seems to me that this is yet another smear campaign against the SSPX. Nobody in his
right mind would put graffiti on a church.
Much less a real Catholic. It comes to the point
that they have to Prove their asertion, or be still.
Vigil, yes, prayer, yes. Attack? Hardly. Mr. Edgar
Fernández is all over the net crying fault, Instead
of talking to father Amazurrieta and calm things
down. People in Guadalajara are fed up with the
shennanigans of the Novus ordo and a bunch of
sedevacantist groups are cropping up.
So, mr. Fernández, stop your smearing little
campaign and if You want to prosecute, go ahead.
If you can show some proof… My faith in the FSSP just got shattered.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Tiberius, believe what you want. I could care less what you think or what you believe. The facts are the facts. Go ask the poor people inside the FSSP church who were trying to pray while your SSPX priest was outside watching his minions protest, disrupting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If that is the kind of people you like to surround yourself with then so be it.

Edgar said...

Tiberious, just to get your facts straight, 1) I was not the originator of the post nor did I supplied the data to Mr. Bellisario to publish it, I just confirmed that it happened because many people doubted that this was real. 2)Not only me but several other people have confirmed that this occur and that the report is accurate (obviously even more people were witness of the protest) 3) Please be free to contact father Amozorrutia or father Puga and see if they deny the story. 4)Isn't it funny that now I and the FSSP are the ones accused of smearing the SSPX when it was them that started this whole mess with their attack and defamation(verbal and written in pamphlets) 5)My biggest reason for standing by the story is that this type of behavior must not happen again and that the SSPX leadership above Fr. Amozorrutia takes firm measures to ensure this type of attitudes against the FSSP in Guadalajara stop. 6) Finally I have not been all over the net crying foul but I have corroborated the story in English here and in one site in Spanish so that hardly qualifies as a campaign but the facts as Matthew has mentioned are the facts: A mob composed of SSPX parishioners led by a SSPX priest showed up to protest a traditional latin mass they thought was going to be an ecumenical service (even though Father Romo had already told Fr. Amozorrutia that was not the case) “coincidently” the same day the chapel was vandalized with “Ecumenismo No Judas”, they prayed a rosary and shouted several times using a loudspeaker that disrupted the most of the mass prior to the consacration and they handled out pamphlets attacking the FSSP, if this is not an attack then tell me what it is.

Sean said...

For the SSPX response to this news, see http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sspx_fssp_mexico_incident.htm

Matthew, I am curious if you attempted to contact the SSPX folks when you were veryifing this story?

K Gurries said...

This story is becoming more and more disturbing. The SSPX relays the following:

===============================
Fr. Romanoski (or something like that) came out a couple of times to invite them to come inside for Mass, saying that “we are the same” and to invite them to a “Rosary of Reparation for false ecumenism” which would take place after the Mass.
===============================

So, the FSSP offered a TLM for TRUE ecumenism - to be followed by a Rosary to make reparation for FALSE ecumenism. How could any sane traditional group take issue with that?

The SSPX USA District website then adds this detail:

==============================
"NB from USA District: the act of reparation made at the FSSP's chapel was justified (regardless of the priest's private disposition), because the Fraternity of St. Peter officially supports false ecumenism via their May Protocol."
================================

Wow! If Bishop Fellay steps in to correct the matter will he too be accused of supporting "false ecumenism"? Maybe a crowd of rosary crusaders will assemble around his house and pray for him...

Sean said...

So the SSPX gathered at the different locations where these events would take place to pray a rosary. Why include the FSSP? The answer is also in the SSPX response:

"The act of reparation made at the FSSP's chapel was justified (regardless of the priest's private disposition), because the Fraternity of St. Peter officially supports false ecumenism via their May Protocol."

K Gurries said...

The "May Protocol" is [substantially] the same as that signed by Archbishop Lefebvre on May 5, 1988. Neither document mentions the topic of "ecumenism" -- so it's unclear how the "May Protocol" has now become an endorsement by the FSSP of FALSE ecumenism.

Sean said...

I’d been given to understand that an SSPX priest who wanted to change over to the FSSP was obliged to sign a "Formula Adhaesionis" -- i.e. a Formula of Adherence to the conciliar Church. If that were not correct then your point might be valid that the FSSP has nothing to do with modern ecumenism; as the formula of adherence was required, however, then the point about the FSSP being compromised by its silence in the face of modernist errors (ecumenism among them) has merit.

Point of clarification: the differences between the two protocols are not insubstantial, as you intimated.

space ant said...

The way I see it, it doesn't matter what side any of us are on in this matter.

We either hold to the Way of the Cross, and let the matter die down because those of us who were not involved should not feed the flames. We should all be like doctors and nurses, and do what we can to tend to the matter so that all is healed.

Or, we hold to venom and sectarian thinking, ensuring our passions deepen the wounds and spread them across national boundaries, thinking wrongly that our furor, as LAYMEN, is necessary for the matter to be settled. Beware when your passions cause you to sensationalize.

I say this to both "sides". Can you carry your cross as well as that cup of venom? I have this mental picture of us all carrying our crosses, and then this incident breaks out, and some people put their crosses down and make fists. I think there is an obvious way to handle this, as laymen, that does not require us to leave the cross on the curb so we can yell and fight.

I wish more people had the idea that prudence and obedience mean we should be sheep and let the shepherds do what they must. It is not very likely us laymen who were not there can solve this problem. It is also not very likely that grace is behind people feeding the flames. Being offended is not feeding the flames, though. Having been offended, still, be very careful what you say and do. Few of us are so personally involved that we can have a real place in bringing a resolution to the matter.

Pablo said...

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a modern day Saint Athanasius.

That doesn't make his followers saints of anyone's devotion.

I am not surprised at all that the U.S. District has stuck its nose in Mexican matters. If it is not the American Freemason Gnostics shooting our holy Priests, it is the American Traditional Gnostics overstepping their authority. America needs to stay home.

What would be the Traditional Gnostic’s reply if Mexico entered into the American scene? Those Holy Rollers would use every nickel and every resource they had to punish those wetbacks that scandalize them.

The SSPX America should butt out.

There is a Superior of the SSPX in Mexico. What has he had to say?

May God our Lord in His infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us His abundant grace, that we may know His most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.

*

K Gurries said...

If one has evidence that FSSP priests are signing formulas of adhesion to FALSE ecumenism then one should produce it. Otherwise it is simply a baseless claim and empty argument to assert that FSSP supports FALSE ecumenism. Adherence to the Magisterium of the Church does not add up to adhesion to FALSE ecumenism.

Joe said...

This is the kind of incident upon which a prudent person restrains himself from passing judgment until it has been FULLY investigated. If you weren't there, don't comment until you've interviewed (professionally) everyone who was.

Furthermore, why is it so easy for people to pick up stuff like this and make general conclusions? That's not the best way to do inductive reasoning if you want it to reveal truth for you.

Thanks for participating in modern media mayhem.

-- JMPPG

Matthew Bellisario said...

First of all Joe, it seems that you are the one passing judgment here, not me. I reported the facts as they happened, and everything I reported has been confirmed, not only by eyewitnesses, but by the SSPX themselves. Since you have posted here passing judgment on me, now you too have become part of the "modern media mayhem."

Joe said...

If you haven't interviewed ALL of the witnesses yourself, you shouldn't be commenting. Parroting what someone else wrote isn't journalism.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Joe, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. I don't particularly care what you think. I didn't get my info from a second hand internet source, I got it from an eyewitness. Other eyewitnesses confirm what my source said. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Pablo said...

Dear Mr. Joe,

Salutations.

May I ask if you work for the SSPX U.S.District?

Contempt for those who speak truthfully is usually reserved for those elitists who consider themselves above reproach and their fellow man unworthy of anything.

Is there a problem other than posts at this blog that is bothering you?

I’ve been in a lot of dogfights, but I never bit someone that did not deserve it. It’s called Honor.

May God our Lord in his infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us his abundant grace, that we may know his most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.

*

Don Paco said...

Here's another flyer handed out on the night of the 'ecumenical Mass' by the SSPX protesters:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/02/second-flyer-from-sspx-attack-against.html

Fr. Romanoski's reaction will be posted soon (as soon as it is translated).

dolorosa said...

Does the FSSP support the Pope going to Assisi with false religions?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Why don't you ask them Dolorosa? What kind of a question is that anyways?

Saint Michael Come To Our Defense said...

Senora Dolorosa,

Your question is a timely one and serves as a barometer for the relationship of the FSSP in Rome.

I have enjoyed viewing your excellent Catholic web site.

Congratulations.

In Jesus and Mary Immaculate,

pablo

*

Matthew Bellisario said...

Congratulations on what? What about the FSSP? Maybe you can explain instead of beating around the bush with unexplained questions.

Saint Michael Come To Our Defense said...

Dear Mr. Belisario,

Salutations.

I viewed Senora Dolorosa's comment and under her profile is listed a web site she maintains.

It is an excellent web site.

As for her question, I am certain (upon information and belief) she will make more progress searching for an answer in the public domain than she would in the FSSP.

I don't beat around any bushes.

My comment was clear.

It did not contain any questions.

*