The “new” SSPX knows that some priests and laymen are aware of its liberalism but are afraid to openly oppose it. The “new” SSPX marginalizes them and works to keep them scared and quiet.

But most of the “new” SSPX’s priests and followers keep themselves ignorant of anything which would engage their consciences or require them to stand up against the “new” SSPX’s liberalism. The revolution now occurring in the “new” SSPX is like the conciliar revolution which occurred after Vatican II. Here is how the “old” SSPX described that earlier revolution (beginning with Vatican II):

[B]y far the largest [group], making up perhaps 80% to 90% of the faithful, tends to be apathetic. It never wanted the changes; it had little interest in the changes; but it will do nothing to oppose them. This is not something that should shock or surprise us; it is a normal fact of the behavior of any social group or organization. ... This general attitude of practical indifference is the greatest asset of any group fomenting a revolution. Revolutionaries do not need active support, simply minimal resistance, and when they can impose their revolution from above, as has happened since the Council, then a successful revolution is virtually guaranteed.²

The “new” SSPX leadership knows it must periodically ensure that its priests and people remain asleep by assuring them that “nothing has changed” within the SSPX. However, the “new” SSPX methodically brainwashes its priests and followers to accept the “new reality” of the conciliar church. When Bishop Fellay was recently asked “if the SSPX [can] be confident of the support of SSPX churchgoers for reconciliation [with Rome]”, he stated:

It will be quite a work, and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality ....

In a recent article published by the “new” SSPX, Fr. Michel Simoulin (former rector of the seminary) delivered a dose of tranquilizer to ensure that those weak, low-information priests and followers remain asleep and pliable to brainwashing.

Fr. Simoulin does this with rhetorical questions to which he knows the “new” SSPX’s uninformed sleepers don’t possess sufficient facts to respond. As if the SSPX has not radically changed, he asks rhetorically:

What did our [present] superiors accept of the things Archbishop Lefebvre refused: the New Mass? The conciliar theories? Religious liberty? The cult of Man? Indifferentist ecumenism?

Id.

Because Fr. Simoulin will get no response from either the Society’s uninformed or its cowardly priests or followers, we answer his questions for them, proving that the Society has changed radically.

Fr. Simoulin’s first question: “did our [present] superiors accept ... the New Mass?”

Catholic Candle’s answer: The “new” SSPX promotes the new mass and promotes much that is part of the new mass. To take just a few examples:

• Bishop Fellay attended the new mass himself, showing by his own example the SSPX’s new position that the new mass is acceptable. After he attended the new mass, he enthusiastically praised it.
• Bishop Fellay’s two assistants also attended the new mass when visiting Pope Francis, showing by their own example the “new” SSPX’s position that the new mass is acceptable.
• The “new” SSPX says the new mass gives grace. In reality, the new mass never gives grace.
• Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like making a better vernacular translation. This tells people that the “new” SSPX does not have a problem with the new mass itself.
• The “new” SSPX (falsely) says that our Baptismal Character shows us the new mass is sometimes good and pleasing to God. (This hare-brained theory is a Fellay novelty.)
• Bishop Fellay promotes a hybrid mixture of the new mass and Traditional Mass;
• Bishop Fellay laughed and smiled while recounting his liturgical experimentation as a teenager, viz., creating new “eucharistic prayers” for the new mass that was used by his conciliar high school. In this video interview, Bishop Fellay showed no sign that the new mass is bad or that his creating new “eucharistic prayers” was wrong;
• Bishop Fellay stated that the new mass is legitimately promulgated³ (although nothing can be “legitimately promulgated” which is not legitimate, because promulgating evil is never legitimate).

• The “new” SSPX promotes the new mass through publishing the statements of (so-called) “conservative” conciliar revolutionaries (e.g., cardinals), such as these statements: “we run the risk of making our worship [viz., the new mass] too human” and “the main reason why contemporary liturgy [sic] is adrift is the priest’s position turned toward the people.”

  By promoting such truly-absurd statements, the “new” SSPX shows its followers that the problems with the new mass are the manner in which it is often said, thereby showing that the new mass itself is not the problem.

• The “new” SSPX promotes making the Traditional Mass more like the new mass by using the Traditional Mass in the vernacular. This is a step to breaking down opposition within the “new” SSPX to the new mass in the vernacular. The conciliar church used this same tactic to introduce the new mass in the 1960s.
• The “new” SSPX has begun calling the Traditional Mass by its conciliar name, viz., the “extraordinary form”. This name shows there is also a different, ordinary “option”, viz., the new mass.
• This list does not address the “new” SSPX’s promotion of many related evils such as accustoming its followers to conciliar things connected with the new mass, e.g., ugly conciliar vestments, a table-type “altar” used for the new mass, and the tabernacle separated from the table-“altar” and bolted to the wall.

Fr. Simoulin’s second and third questions: “did our [present] superiors accept ... the conciliar theories? Religious liberty?”

Catholic Candle’s answer: The “new” SSPX promotes conciliar theories, including religious liberty. Here are a few examples:

• The “new” SSPX recently published an article about Islam’s hostility toward other religions. This article stressed the importance of religious liberty for every religion and omitted to state the Catholic truth that error (including religious error) has no rights. The truth is that only the true Catholic Faith has rights.
• The “new” SSPX did not contradict the Vatican’s “Archbishop”⁴ Pozzo (who is responsible for relations with the SSPX), who publicly stated that the SSPX now accepts Vatican II’s religious liberty.
• Bishop Fellay minimized the significance of Vatican II’s revolutionary teaching on religious liberty, by saying (falsely) that it is a very, very limited one, very limited.
• The “new” SSPX says we must continually change. This echoes the conciliar hierarchy, which continually emphasizes the need to change, to “renew” ourselves, and to “ride the wave of revolution of faith”.⁵
• Vatican II contradicted the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.⁶ The “new” SSPX has now adopted this conciliar error and denies the Church’s teaching that the Jews did commit Deicide.
• There are many errors taught in chapter 3 of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium. Only some of them are corrected or partially corrected by Pope Paul VI’s inadequate “band-aid” (supposed) “correction”, which he called: “Nota explicativa prævia”. The “new” SSPX accepts all the errors in Lumen Gentium, chapter 3, which are not corrected by this “Nota explicativa prævia”. Here are the “new” SSPX’s words of betrayal: it now accepts Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium. [chapter 3] ... explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa prævia to this very chapter.⁷
• The “new” SSPX (falsely) says that conciliar leaders, such as Pope Francis, abide in the truth and have been preserved from error. How can the “new” SSPX hold this unless the “new” SSPX accepts Pope Francis’s conciliar errors that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected?
• The “new” SSPX (falsely) says Pope Francis appoints good bishops. How can the SSPX say this unless it also accepts the conciliar errors that these (supposedly) “good bishops” accept?
• Pope John Paul II told the truth when he said that the new (1983) code of canon law is the practical implementation of (erroneous) conciliar teaching.⁸ The “new” SSPX now promises to respect and accept this modernist new code.⁹
• The conciliar church refers to promotion of Vatican II as “The New Evangelization”. Recently, the “new” SSPX declared that Pope Francis sees the SSPX as a help in the New Evangelization. Id. How could this be if Pope Francis did not see the “new” SSPX as helping promote Vatican II?
• Among countless other conciliar theories, is the error of degrees of being in communion with the Catholic Church. The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term in “full communion”.
• Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis is his friend, who says a lot of things which now make the (new) SSPX happy. In reality, it would be difficult or impossible to think of anything Pope Francis says which is not a “conciliar theory”.
• More specifically, Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage contains many things that are correct and beautiful. In reality, there is nothing in this vile, thoroughly-conciliar document which is not weak or heretical.
• The “new” SSPX now publishes the sermons of Pope Francis, full of conciliarism and humanism.

Fr. Simoulin’s fourth question: “did our [present] superiors accept ... the cult of Man?”

Catholic Candle’s answer: The “new” SSPX does promote many aspects of the cult of man. Here are a few examples:

• One aspect of the “cult of man” is to focus on what the world thinks. The “new” SSPX spent about $200,000 for a single, one-page ad in USA Today, to promote its bland, feel-good, naturalistic message of “supporting families”.
• Another aspect of the “cult of man” is a focus on material concerns (money). The “new” SSPX now is fully-focused on money in complete contrast to the “old” SSPX.

• Another aspect of the “cult of man” is the “new” SSPX promoting worldly desires in its followers. It heavily promotes the desire of luxury goods, such as a Mercedes luxury sedan. The “new” SSPX fosters their followers’ worldly desire for this luxury car, to get them to buy SSPX raffle tickets.

  Leaving aside the unfortunate soul whose salvation is now more difficult because he won this worldly status symbol, the “new” SSPX caused a countless number of its followers to desire this worldliness. How opposite to Our Lord, teaching Blessed are the poor in spirit and that is it harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!

• Another aspect of the “cult of man” is self-centeredness. The “new” SSPX is focused on itself. The “new” SSPX constantly reminds its followers how important it is and how much good the “new” SSPX does. Id.
• The “old” SSPX used to rarely mention money and did not try to raise money by appealing to the selfishness of donors. The “new” SSPX now constantly reminds donors “how much we do for you” and how much benefit they receive personally from the SSPX (although, in reality, the “new” SSPX does less and less for souls).
• Another aspect of the “cult of man” is for an organization to focus on being popular and thus to create a false impression about its growth. The SSPX now lies to convince people that it is constantly growing.
• Besides “new” SSPX lies about its supposed “constant growth”, the “new” SSPX now lies about other matters also. The “new” SSPX now focuses on whether what it says is believed, not whether it is true. Therefore, the “new” SSPX is willing to lie as long as it does not get caught—as it sometimes does.
• One aspect of the “cult of man” is to imitate the world. For example, Pope Paul VI stated that the modern world’s values [a]re not only respected but honored.¹⁰ Now, increasingly, the “new” SSPX respects the values of the world and wants to fit in with the world, even saying that the “new” SSPX is “very much like” everyone else. The “new” SSPX no longer remembers what it is like to be a sign of contradiction, like Our Lord.
• Another aspect of the “cult of man” is to adopt the “modesty” standards of the world. The “new” SSPX now progressively promotes miniskirts, women with bare shoulders or exposed flanks, and women wearing trousers.¹¹
• Another aspect of the “cult of man” is the “new” SSPX accepting and promoting television and movies. Because those entertainments harm souls and impede the spiritual life, the “old” SSPX always rejected them. For this reason the “old” SSPX banned those entertainments for its priests, brothers and third order and urged all its followers to shun those entertainments. That has all changed. Now, the “new” SSPX gives movie reviews, television reviews and promotes TV programs and movies unless they are considered “vulgar”. Id.
• The “new” SSPX publishes godless and humanistic nonsense, like a thoroughly-conciliar “meditation” which begins by using what it calls a “centering” technique. This is syncretism and ecumenism! The SSPX is here promoting the vocabulary of yoga, eastern paganism, and the New Age!
• The “new” SSPX promotes conciliar “saint” Katharine Drexel whom the Vatican “canonized” to promote her opposition to racism and her social justice and civil rights crusade. The SSPX joins the conciliar church promotion of this woman portrayed as a humanist social worker. Id.
• The “new” SSPX promotes a conciliar so-called “saint” Laura Vicuña, whom the conciliar church promotes out of political correctness because she (supposedly) died for every woman’s dignity and is the “patroness of abuse victims”.

Fr. Simoulin’s fifth question: “did our [present] superiors accept ... the indifferentist ecumenism?”

Catholic Candle’s answer: The “new” SSPX does promote indifferentist ecumenism. Here are a few examples:

• The over-arching goal of all conciliar ecumenists is outward union with those who don’t share the true Catholic Faith. This goal is evident, e.g., in conciliar Rome’s agreements with the Lutherans. Now the “new” SSPX seeks this same type of ecumenical outward union with conciliar Rome, which (like the Lutherans) does not profess the true Catholic Faith.
• Another aspect of “indifferentist ecumenism” is calling heretics by the name “Christian”. This is un-Catholic and ecumenical because it puts heretical “religions” on the same par with the true Catholic Religion, by calling them by the same name. This common name also falsely indicates that heretics are followers of Christ. The “new” SSPX has adopted this conciliar practice.
• To further the goal of ecumenism, the conciliar church refers to heretics, who were killed for their heretical faith, as “martyrs”. The SSPX has begun following this un-Catholic, ecumenical practice of referring to heretics, who were killed for their heretical faith, as “martyrs”.
• It is rank conciliar ecumenism to dignify the false, merely-human faith of heretics by putting it on the same level as the true supernatural Catholic Faith. Recently, the “new” SSPX has begun referring to the false protestant faiths and the true Catholic Faith together, as “the Christian Faith” (using the singular).

Conclusion: Fr. Simoulin is a change agent for the “new” SSPX revolution. He did not expect his rhetorical questions would be answered. But this article shows that the “new” SSPX superiors accept many, many things that Archbishop Lefebvre refused.

And the list keeps growing.