I haven't posted for almost a year, but there has been some speculation that the Society of Such Pious Gents will reconcile with Rome. I therefore thought it would be useful to add clarity to the matter. I can confirm that these rumours exist and that representatives of our Society have had cordial meetings with representatives with the Holy Father. However, it is too early to say whether a reconciliation will actually take place. What I can confirm, however, is the following:
1. If the Society of Such Pious Gents reconciles with Rome, it will because, according to Catholic teaching, it absolutely necessary to be in communion with the Vicar of Christ. (Satis Cognitum 1896)
2. If the Society of Such Pious Gents does not reconcile with Rome, it will be because there is an emergency in the Church, therefore a state of necessity applies and we can ignore what I have just written above. Furthermore, anyone who subscribes to the above argument will be accused of compromising the traditional faith.
3. Whatever happens, we will declare that it is what the Archbishop would have wanted.
I hope this is clear.
Wednesday, 3 June 2015
Just when I thought things in the conciliar church couldn't get any worse, I hear that they have now appointed a female Cardinal. Apparently Cardinal Sarah will have the same voting rights as the male cardinals. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not in any way misogynist, nor do I have any personal animosity against young Sarah. It's just not traditional, it's just political correctness gone mad in my view.
Friday, 10 April 2015
As Superior Major General of the Society of Such Pious Gents, I am used to hearing vicious and malicious attacks on our Society. Generally speaking, I tend to ignore these kind of vicious comments. However, I must respond to some rather unpleasant sniping I received recently. This nastiness stems from my condemnation of the illicit consecration of Fr Jean-Michel Jarre by Bishop William Richardson. I pointed out that Pope Pius XII taught that the consecration of a bishop in defiance of the express orders of the Pope was absolutely forbidden under any circumstances and that he had described such consecrations as "gravely illicit i.e. criminal and sacrilegious". These naysayers have written to me pointing out that I was myself consecrated against the express orders of the Pope. The difference between the consecration carried out by Bishop Richardson and my own consecration is simple. My own consecration was carried out because there existed a "state of necessity" whereas no such necessity existed in the case of the consecration carried out by Bishop Richardson. It is perfectly legitimate to consecrate a bishop in defiance of the orders of the Pope if there is a 'necessity', as any good canon lawyer will tell you. (Apart from Ed Peters, that is)
Sunday, 22 March 2015
With great affliction the Society of Such Pious Gents has learned of the unlawful episcopal consecration conferred on Father Jean-Michel Jarre by Bishop William Richardson. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Bishop Richardson claims this illicit consecration is justified in order to preserve 'Tradition'. But how can an act that is gravely against Catholic teaching be justified on the grounds that its purpose is to defend Tradition? Dear faithful, the teaching of the Church on this matter is crystal clear. In his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, Pope Pius XII clearly taught that it was NEVER legitimate to consecrate a bishop in defiance of the express will of the Pope. Such consecrations may be valid but were 'gravely illicit i.e. criminal and sacrilegious'. Allow me to quote from Pope Leo XIII who wrote in his encyclical Satis Cognitum: ...it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone. Nobody can doubt that Bishop Richardson's actions are completely in opposition to the divine constitution of the Church and the Society of Such Pious Gents condemns these consecrations unconditionally.
Thursday, 29 January 2015
In a recent interview, Pope Francis stated that it was not necessary for Catholics to breed like rabbits. What absolute heresy! As St Pius taught in his famous encyclical Ut sint tanquam cuniculi, the primary reason that God made rabbits was as an example to mankind. It is in humility that we thank God for sending the Society of Such Pious Gents to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church. At a time of spiritual darkness, it is important that we stand firm to Tradition. Oh, and eat lots of carrots! That's all folks! Bertrand "Bugs Bunny" Fellow
Monday, 25 August 2014
As you will all be aware, we had to expel Bishop Richardson from the Society of Such Pious Gents a few years ago. Some of you may be asking what are the main theological differences between the Society of Such Pious Gents and Bishop Richardson. It all began a few years ago when I had talks with Rome about the possibility of the Society of Such Pious Gents entering into communion with the Pope. In the event, the Society didn't enter into communion with the Pope, but the fact that there may have even been a possibility that we did so was a compromise too far for Bishop Richardson. This however is the opposite to the Church's teaching. Pope Leo XIII taught that it was absolutely necessary for bishops to be in communion with the Pope (Satis Cognitum, 1896). Whilst we're not in communion with the Pope, we're not as 'not in communion' as Bishop Richardson. We're only not in communion with the Pope because of the crisis in the Church.
Saturday, 26 July 2014
On a recent visit to London I noticed an advertisement on the London Underground for Amnesty International, a charity which campaigns against torture - and I don't mean sitting through a novus ordo folk Mass for two hours. Anyway, the poster concerned a lady who was sentenced to stoning for wearing trousers (pants for my American readers!). At first I thought she might be a follower of Bishop William Richardson's new sect, but it turns out it relates to a case in an Islamic country in Africa. I am often asked whether it is permissible for traditional Catholics to wear trousers. Some people take a relaxed view on the matter. They say that it doesn't matter whether a woman wears a skirt or trousers - it's what's underneath that's important. I'm afraid we in the Society of Such Pious Gents cannot take such a liberal view. For us, a trousered woman is basically saying she doesn't really want to be a woman, she wants to be a man, it's a slippery slope to feminism and transgenderism. Whilst, of course, I don't advocate stoning, I suggest that any woman turning up to one of our Mass centres wearing trousers should spend a few months in our mission in Kabul.