On June 30th – ten days prior to being replaced as SSPX Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay was interviewed by the German media outlet Die Tagespost. An English translation of the complete text of the interview is available on the Society’s website.
Here, we will look at a number of relevant excerpts; some of them very troubling.
First observation – Die Tagespost is not a “traditionalist” publication; rather, it is neo-conservative in orientation. As such, this interview provided a golden opportunity for His Excellency to speak plainly to those who are convinced that the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae are not in and of themselves poisonous.
In fact, I would say that this is the only good reason to sit down with an interviewer that one can reasonably expect to be antagonistic – in this case, a writer by the name of Regina Einig – and indeed, she was.
Einig was not bashful about showing her bias by suggesting, and stubbornly so even after being corrected, that there was a “definitive separation of the Society” from the Church.
Bishop Fellay did well to state firmly, “I insist: We never separated from the Church,” and this after already having said of the 1988 consecrations:
Therefore it was not about separating from the Church, but about distinguishing our position from the modern spirit, from the fruits of the Council.
This may cause one to wonder: Spirit, fruits, or contents of the Council? Bishop Fellay went on to clarify, as he stated:
We never said that the Council made heretical statements outright. But it did remove the protective barrier against error and in this way caused error to crop up.
Wow. Count me as stunned. If it is not an outright heresy to say that Christ uses the Protestant sects as “means of salvation” (Unitatis Redintegration – 3) then nothing is.
Of course, there are those who will split hairs (as Fr. Gleize did on behalf of the SSPX in his treatment of Amoris Laetitia) by framing the definition of “heresy” in such theologically technical terms that the word is rendered all-but-meaningless.
Even so, the more troubling aspect of Bishop Fellay’s response concerns the suggestion that the Council simply “removed barriers against error;” as opposed to positively proposing error.
What happened to Bishop Fellay?!
I recall very well having had the privilege of sharing a semi-private breakfast with His Excellency and just four or five others (all priests but one) back in 2012. At the time, I was still in the earlier stages of having my eyes opened to tradition, and I remember vividly just how jolting it was to hear Bishop Fellay speak plainly about “the errors of the Council.”
In fact, the Decree on Ecumenism and the preposterous idea that the Protestant sects are “means of salvation” is one of the specific examples he cited in so accusing the Council.
Today, not only does he suggest otherwise, he actually went on in the interview to explicitly absolve the Council of error:
…what happened during and after the Council was perceived much more sensitively and more attentively than in Germany. It was not a matter of blatant errors, but rather of trends, of opening doors and windows.
As much as I would like to report otherwise, it only went from bad to worse.
After clarifying the Society’s position on the Novus Ordo (generally valid, but harmful), he went on to say:
The new Mass has defects and dangers lurking in it. Of course not every new Mass is a scandal immediately, but the repeated celebration of the new Mass leads to a weak faith or even to the loss of faith.
If I may take the liberty of clarifying Bishop Fellay’s point, at least in terms of what I believe it is fair to imagine, in suggesting that every new Mass is not “a scandal immediately,” he seems to mean that the faithful there present are not immediately scandalized. This, as most of us know from experience, is true; i.e., it is often only over time that one’s eyes are opened that the reality of the Novus Ordo.
That said, we must be clear (and, unfortunately, Bishop Fellay was not): The Novus Ordo, given the undeniable fact that it is defective and leads one away from the Faith, is always and everywhere scandalous – no matter how it is celebrated.
Bishop Fellay went on to list a number of examples of how the new Mass leads to a loss of faith. He then said:
With the new Mass you have to bring your own faith; you receive hardly anything immediately from the rite. The rite is flat.
Not to nitpick, but after having participated in the Novus Ordo for more than a decade, I know that this isn’t true. The anthropocentric orientation of the new Mass always presses itself upon those present – even when celebrated ad orientem. It is inescapable.
When asked by Einig, “Do you consider conversions that are encouraged even today by the new Mass—think of Nightfever [a spin-off from World Youth Day that organizes nights of prayer to bring people back to the faith]—to be self-deceptions?
A good answer to that question would have made it clear that any conversions that appear to grow out of the Novus Ordo are evidence of God’s goodness and generosity; they are not indications that the rite is an instrument of conversion; much less good. And then there is the question: To exactly what are those persons converting?
In any case, Bishop Fellay answered:
No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying: If you welcome a head of state and have the choice between a silver trumpet and a tin trumpet, do you use the tin trumpet? That would be an insult; you don’t do that. And even the best new Masses are like tin trumpets in comparison to the old liturgy. We have to use the best for the dear Lord.
Perhaps this was an attempt to engage Die Tagespost’s neo-conservative audience by framing the conversation in terms of what Our Lord deserves. Indeed, it is true that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the summit of Divine worship; it is the best that we have to offer Him.
The problem, however, lies in the suggestion that the difference between the Traditional Roman Rite and the Novus Oro lies not so much in what they are as in the quality of each; like in the case of a Toyota Prius and a Cadillac – each one a car that will get you where you want go, but one a whole lot nicer than the other.
According to this way of thinking, both rites are truly Catholic; one is just more impressive in the eyes of God.
I don’t think that Bishop Fellay believes this to be so, but then again, based on the contents of this interview, I must admit that I no longer have any confidence in my own perception concerning what he actually believes or not.
There is, however, an even bigger problem.
As I have stated in the past, a sincere seeker of truth who happens to come upon this interview, or certain other pieces of information posted on the SSPX website, will likely come away not knowing what the Society itself actually believes – and worse, what is, and what is not, consonant with tradition.
In conclusion, please pray for Bishop Fellay. Clearly, all is not well with him. Let us pray also for the Society, that under the leadership of Fr. Pagliarani it will once again speak with clarity and conviction in defense of Catholic tradition.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The launch of The Catholic Inquisitor has led to a decrease in content posted at akaCatholic. Eventually, this will not be the case. In addition to costing time, the newspaper is taking a financial toll. I knew it would and accept this challenge willingly, trusting that Our Lord will – as He always has – raise up the supporters that we need. If you feel so compelled, now would be a great time to donate. – Louie
Yes, very disappointing defense of the Mass of Ages by Bishop Fellay. A teaching opportunity was certainly lost. Where’s the passion? Where’s the outrage at what the Novus Ordo has wrought? There are exactly 2 well catechized practicing Catholics left in my large extended family (parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles) of 27. Most have fallen away, several are totally Protestantized Novus Ordo types who endorse sodomy and contraception.
BTW, I drive a Prius, Louie and it’s quite nice, low carbon footprint and all. 😉 great engineering, solid and stylish. Can’t you use a cheesier car in your example, such as a Yugo? The Novus Ordo is just that cheesy.
“Bishop Fellay: That is true. But the goodness is there, the good will. For years we have been working with Rome to rebuild trust. And we have made great progress, despite all the reactions. If we arrive at a reasonable unification with normal conditions, very few will stay away. I have no great fear of a new division in Tradition, if the right terms with Rome are found. We are allowed to call into question certain points of the Council. Our dialogue partners in Rome told us: The main points—freedom of religion, ecumenism, the new Mass—are open questions. That is incredible progress. The line always used to be: You must obey. But now our colleagues in the Curia tell us: You ought to open a seminary in Rome, a university to defend Tradition. No longer is everything black and white.”
What a Pollyana! Doesn’t he realize his “colleagues” in the Curia are master practitioners of Hegelian Dialectic? Clearly they have achieved their objective when “no longer is everything black and white” for the Bishop Fellay. Yes, yes, open a seminary and a university right in the Casa Santa Marta! Lenin would be proud: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
“What happened to Bishop Fellay?!”
The same thing that eventually happens to anyone who compromises with the so-called “authority” of the Vatican II sect leaders.
“The new Mass has defects and dangers lurking in it. Of course not every new Mass is a scandal immediately, but the repeated celebration of the new Mass leads to a weak faith or even to the loss of faith – (Bishop Fellay)”
*If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. – Council of Trent*
Either the Novus Ordo service is Catholic and an incentive to piety or it is not Catholic and an incentive to impiety.
“In conclusion, please pray for Bishop Fellay. Clearly, all is not well with him. Let us pray also for the Society, that under the leadership of Fr. Pagliarani it will once again speak with clarity and conviction in defense of Catholic tradition.”
I wonder if Louie is aware that Bishop Fellay was elected as Advisor to Fr Pagliarani. Given his answers in this recent interview, I question whether Bishop Fellay will be advising the new Superior General any differently than how he led the SSPX as Superior General for the last 12 years.
Louie, I subscribed, and I hope everyone who reads this blog subscribes as well, if only to support Louie’s great endeavor. He has spent a great deal of time having this blog and giving us information and a forum for super discussions. Please support him at least once by subscribing to the Inquisitor, no doubt a massive endeavor.
I can smell the sellout of the SSPX from here. It is all over what is said and what is not said, by Bishop Fellay. Just the fact that during this last few years, when Catholics are really suffering from this papacy, there should have been vocal leadership from the Bishop or the SSPX. I don’t care how lovely or authentic your Mass is if you remain silent while the sheep are mistreated thus! What care I about your presentation of a beautiful “authentic” Mass with all the bells and whistles? I love those things as much as anyone, but when the sheep are being ill-treated or torn apart, should I be impressed the sheepherder now has a pleasant relationship with the wolves and does not wish to criticize the abuse of the sheep?
These men have no credibility with me now, for exactly that reason. If others still find solace in the SSPX, I would not take it from them, we all need solace, God knows, but if the faith is compromised, I’d just as soon not. I’ll just wait on the Lord.
The apparent takedown of the SSPX as uncompromising upholders of the Faith from about the end of 2013 has been horrific to see in the face of unprecedented open apostasy from the person in the Holy See, the college of cardinals, the bishops.
When the SSPX started calling the V2 church the “official” church instead of the “conciliar” church as they did in the past, I knew the end was near. “Official” means having authority. The V2 fake church has no authority because it does not conform to the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Invisible head. The SSPX has lost their mission and their vision. My heart breaks for the warrior priests in the SSPX who have been betrayed and the Catholic Faithful who trusted +Fellay and Company. Let us pray for the new leadership.
I am thinking about all those Catholics who have been from the beginning defending the faith, since the Second Vatican Council. Among them, we have the ‘von Hildebrands,’ and many others, and of course the Fraternity of Saint Peter…..etc. Are we to assume, that they are not Catholics, because they have participated in the Novus Ordo Mass?
What ‘saint’ to be Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP) has done for the Church, for the priesthood was Providence. 50 years has passed since then, among the weeds is good wheat, known to God alone.
Who can in the right mind, judge Bishop Fellay, why he’s not condemning today, as it was done after the Second Vatican Council……justly so. Only God knows his heart, after much pondering, much sacrifice and persecution, he is trusting God. For his entrance into the Coliseum……. for we do not know, it might be a command from God Himself, for His Greater Good, His Church, for the good of saving souls, especially, their own. For where’s Peter, there’s the Church, even with the sinful ‘consecrated’, that God in His good time, is sorting out. For our Mother Church is for sinners, called to sainthood.
We all know, that the time is coming soon for the ‘consecration of bishops’……..Bishop Fellay, a very good shepherd is weighing it in prudence, fearing God only…..hopefully, choosing the Royal Way of the Cross.
Unless, he chooses to follow the Sedevacantists, Schismatic Orthodox Church, or the Resistance…….God forbid!
May the bishops of the Society of Pius X, be wise as a serpent, and simple as a dove……May God’s Will Be Done!
Jesus, Saviour of the world, sanctify Thy priests and sacred ministers, lest many will perish……God forbid!
As I posted here before, AvH confirmed it was communist HOMOSEXUAL infiltrators who were planted in the seminaries. I was accused by several posters of being a “LIAR”
Episcopal Sodomy: Communist Homosexual Infiltrators
These are the Prelates who have taken hold since the 1930s. SSPX would have to compromise to deal with them and garner their acceptance.
Who then is the FSSP, and who are Alice von Hildebrand and her husband Dietrich (RIP), Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt, Father Kenneth Baker, Peter Kwasniewski, Joe Sobran, Michael Rayes, Susie Lloyd, John Rao, Michael Davies (RIP), Diane Moczar, Steve O’Brien (RIP), Bishop Athanasius Schneider, ……etc.? Have they not been dealing with the adversary ‘within’? Are they all going to hell?
Is the SSPX suppose to act as the Pharisee, from Luke 18th?
As so many Catholic do?
“but when the sheep are being ill-treated or torn apart, should I be impressed the sheepherder now has a pleasant relationship with the wolves and does not wish to criticize the abuse of the sheep?”
Beautifully said. Yes, the bat crazy has infected even the leadership of the SSPX. Bishop Fellay has gone off the rails. A) He and his leadership have remained mute as the Bride of Christ is being raped and it’s members being abused B) He wants to play paddy cake with the demons in Rome.
Enough of this: oh the SSPX was only created to preserve Tradition and be quiet little mouses as the Church is ravaged and raped. Enough! ALL bishops and priests are called to fight for and defend the Bride of Christ and protect the sheep. We are the Church Militant and they are our commanders!
My prayer is that the SSPX will return to fighting against the heresies and evil that is V2: full frontal, public and in the face of modernist, rotten Rome. THAT is what true men and descendants of the Apostles would do.
And an apology to Bishop Williamson is in order. He saw this years ago and was kicked out for it. God bless~
From your Link sweep:
“Communism, which Our Lady specifically warned about at Fatima as spreading its errors all over the world, infiltrated into the Church by homosexual men bent on destroying the Church by destroying the priesthood.”
With the exception that I believe Fatima states that “Russia” would spread its errors, not “Communism” (but, yeah, same difference), this is what ran through my mind before I read this part of the article. Interesting.
This is too funny, but I am not laughing……..I wonder , what would the so-called ‘church militant’ think of Bishop Fellay’s so-called compromise?
Since, when they have become an authority in Church matters……by who’s authority?
From Poland , so you want me to go through these people one by one? I know their backgrounds. FYI some have been just as clueless as the average Catholic nervous ordo reader.
For instance Suzie Lloyd was a big supporter of Maciel’s RC having attended the RC business men’s founded Magdalen College ( now defunct) in NH. The Matt bros, were both sspx and Indult supporters at one time. I think they are way behind the curve. Some of the others either linked up with Opus Dei ( who insures your career as an established Catholic author and speaker) or linked up with JV (a good man but lacking in many areas of formal education) Personally, I preferred JV over the others but alas, he was not completely aware of the hx cabal that flourished in and without the sspx
( many of whom through pride started their own thing like the SSJ, because of pew people who were enamored by their homilies and fed the pride by saying how “HOLY” they were/are).
Stick with what Randy Engel reveals. She is open and truthful checking out all the sources and tips she receives from clerics and laity alike with an international reputation for Catholic veracity in reporting.
Like Louie, she operates independently
and is not beholding to any group.
Remember AvH linked her wagon to EWTN ,who we now know is Opus Dei controlled. I giver her a pass because she is an elderly woman whom I know wants the truth out and is equally horrified by the sodomite communist infiltrators using all Catholic outlets ( including myself as a one time home school leader) to get the information out.
Pray the Rosary and read Scripture daily………
Know this ,Marxist Communism and Freemasonry are one and the same.Gnostic and atheist ,Hell bent on destroying the Church.
Just sincerely curious……if not the SSPX, or FSSP, then where do Randy Engel, or for that matter even Louie go to Mass? Who else is there? Only the Resistance and Pius V Chapels…..unless, Indult, or some so-called ‘independent Chapel that is very questionable. I know, I have been there….and ran out.
From Poland and 2 Vermont. and anyone else including Louie. Just a thought……..
Think about this. How do you run a large religious organization ( albeit not as large as the NO church ) and insure you will not be financially ruined with civil and secular litigation resulting from even a very few pederasts that have squeezed into you organization?
We know that the redactions in the recent Pittsbrugh ArchDiocesan Grand Jury Report are the result of high priced law firms .We also know individual priests cannot afford these law firms.
They are financed at the interest of certain Diocese whose Bishops and one time Bishops , now Cardinals, have access to almost limitless funding to protect their images as ecclesial overseers of these same priests who were under their jurisdiction at the time of their alleged offenses.
Now if you were Bishop Fellay as Superior of the SSPX and you were aware of Urrutigoity and his band of merry pederasts as having been in your seminary along with others who also have questionable sexual attractions and several NO Bishops have issued warnings to boot them out of their own Diocese, in order to protect their own zero tolerance image………and your one time Bishop Williamson has already been publicized to have harbored more than one pederast and transferred him to be in the company of more children along with the revelation your mentally ill ssa one time seminarian had now abused quite a few children at your summer camp. Wuldn’t you have been looking to protect the limited finances of your Order and religious organization ??
I am merely suggesting here that what appeared to be compromising Tradition might have been motivated by a search for financial insurance that your group could survive untoward crippling financial litigation if coming under the auspices of the Vatican.
IMHO , the Legion of Christ and their Regnum Christi cult should have been disbanded ,but no ! They are and will remain protected under the Vatican’s umbrella.
Just an FYI possibility to explain Bishop Fellay’s possible motivation.
From “They Have Uncrowned Him” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, pg. 210 on “Dignitatis Humanae”, the Conciliar document on Religious Liberty:
“Furthermore, unsurpassable blasphemy, the Council intended that the State, freed of its duties towards God, become for the future the guarantee that no religion “be prevented from freely manifesting the particular efficacy of its doctrine in organizing society and livening all human activity (D.H.#4). Vatican II thus invites Our Lord to come and organize and enliven society, in concert with Luther, Mohammed, and Buddha! This is what John Paul II wanted to bring about at Assissi! An irreligious and blasphemous plan!
I am probably desirous of being kinder to Bishop Fellay than many here, but for that very reason I would tell him that this kind of interview, no doubt from his side tailored to the interviewer, to the nature of the media outlet involved and to its readership, is misguided and can only lead to confusion among the SSPX’ own core faithful. At the end of the day, one has to say the truth, not play the political animal. If one does the latter, one will only give the impression of being not very firm in one’s principles.
My reply to your great ideas:
Bits of truth that are so misrepresented that they become the deceits of the Father of Lies. Over-all this is no better than the secular check-out counters’ “tabloid trash” scandalizing many blind traditional Catholics. We should NEVER read such filth. It serves no purpose but to poison our minds and degrade our souls. Nuff is enough……
I am shaking off the dust of my sandals…….enjoy your dialogues with the devil….. yet, amusing many…..go figure!
if you are so curious to know where Louie V or Randy E go to church , why don’t YOU just email them and ask them?
Randy Engel reported on the Urrutgoity Fr Ensey ,Frs Carey Fullerton and St Gregory Academy beautifully and I believe quite some time ago she also reported on Fr Marshall’s dismissal from the institute of Christ the King.
I am also aware of the situation in Idaho from a gentleman who is a lawyer and lives there and attends an SSPX chapel.
So what are you talking about referring to tabloid trash?
Furthermore, Bishop Williamson himself has every right to sue or counter the claims made in the UK News.
I have yet to read any rebuttals from the Bishop and would ask if you could please post the link if you have.
Tabloid? I think not Polska.
Bishop Fellay would be rightly concerned about liabilities as former SG of the SSPX. There was a group in Winona under Bishop Williamson’s watch that all flocked around Urrutigoity.
An SSPX Deacon I knew was there at the time. Some of them followed him out and into the SSJ.
Polish lady….so you mock the link I posted for you asking “since when is CMtv an authority?”
Frankly , not much.
But you also praise the von Hildebrands !
If you bothered to even watch the link you would have seen an interview with the woman herself in which SHE Alice vH,explains to Voris what Dodd told her and her husband.
All I can say to and about your posts is , DUH?
The content and timing were adroitly conducive to a “change” in leadership. The politicians/wolves have changed seats, not direction: masterful.
Is there a priestly society that is not corrupt or perverted? If so, I’d like to know what it is.
Ah! Well said, FM.
It all depends on who you ask.
Hahaha FromPoland do you see? SweepINthefilth is awful. She says “Polska” and “DUH” and talks about Bella Dodd who was obviously a liar like sweepINthefilth. She doesn’t even go to Mass and thinks she can tell other people what to do and spreads rumors and lies all the time. Her dialogues are with herself not the Devil, she just listens to be Devil. Now I don’t think she is Randy Angle but she is an imitation Randy Angle with even less believable. She just deflects and ignores questions and changes the subject and likes to listen to herself talk and LIE and is a bad person and she needs to get banned ASAP.
Everyone is infected with liberalism/modernism, even you. It is in the very air we breath.
Yes, Tom A. That is why Catholics who wish to be Catholic are victims of the devil’s favorite weapon–Confusion. That does not mean confusion about the Faith as revealed by Christ. The Confusion is about the visible Church He established on earth. We could safely rule out the V2 pseudo church. That leaves not much choice for most Faithful Catholics.
Non of us were taught that we have the right to withdraw obedience from prelates who fail to condemn error or who teach heresy, that’s probably the case with those people you mentioned above. Pope John XXIII gave all Catholics a right to withdraw obedience to him as pope on the second week of August 1962 when he signed the Moscow Accord stating publicly he would not condemn the error of communism. Because that agreement has never been condemned by a pope and because of the heresy in Vatican II, all faithful Catholics have a right to withdraw obedience from the pope from then till today. No one exercised their right to withdraw obedience till 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre found himself with his back against the wall and with no other option. The right to withdraw obedience does not create an obligation to withdraw obedience. But that is Church law only, God expects us to act according to the knowledge and wisdom he gave us as an individual person. Objectively, it is a scandal to not condemn the errors of Vatican II if one is aware of them. So the judgement of Bishop Fellay as a knowledgeable son of Archbishop Lefebvre is objective and necessary and not subjective and sinnful.
I think Fr. Voigt was on to something when he said, “Eve dialogued with the devil.” Seems to best explain why the sons of Archbishop Lefebvre who “dialogue” fail to explain to those they dialogue with, why the Catholic faithful have a right to withdraw obedience from prelates who fail to condemn error and prelates who teach heresy. They failed to explain why Vatican II is heretical, and why the Novus Ordo is illicit and schismatic, as well as point out the lies and blasphemies of the liturgical reformers. They failed to call on their prelates to repent and do penance. They are not willing to take leave quietly and go to FSSP. Instead they wreck families, chapels, parishes, schools, friendships, they show a disregard for honesty and truth itself as well as the principle of non-contradiction. They have no apologetics for not exercising their right to withdraw obedience, but can only udder the same false accusations that used to be used against them when they did exercised their right to withdraw obedience. This is Vatican II “b” as Bishop Williamson says in so far as the Church militant has been replaced with the church effeminate, yes pope John XXIII when he decided it was going to be a pastoral council that didn’t condemn, abandoned the Church Militant, for the church effeminate. So traditionalists rest their case, if dialogue was Catholic and worked, bishops in white would be in sack cloth and ashes and the condemning of errors as well as penance would be seen as a higher priority then an agreement between Rome and SSPX. That’s the only way an unity will not be false.
Mr. Verrecchio: “Of course, there are those who will split hairs (as Fr. Gleize did on behalf of the SSPX in his treatment of Amoris Laetitia) by framing the definition of ‘heresy’ in such theologically technical terms that the word is rendered all-but-meaningless.”
Let me get this straight. Father Gleize is being criticized for using heresy according to its precise definition in a theological paper that was written for the purpose of qualifying erroneous propositions? This is insane. Mr. Verrecchio has just implicitly condemned every scholastic theologian worthy of the name. If there were ever a case of the calumniator being exposed by his own calumny, this is it.
And what’s more revealing is that a rejection of precise theological terminology is one of the hallmarks of Modernism – it’s the tactic the devil has used so successfully to destroy the Faith during the past century. I’ve said it before, the similarities between Modernism and sedevacantism are striking. It is quite clear that the devil is behind both of both errors. Those with eyes to see, let them see.
And it goes without saying that anyone who PUBLICLY OBJECTS to using Catholic terminology according to its precise theological meaning has no business writing about the Catholic Faith, much less serving as the editor a so-called Catholic publication.
Thank you Ignatio.
For there are amongst us puffed up by pride cowards, and experts, in other words, the self-made theologians, and those who’s wisdom is from below……….to say the least.
“I am probably desirous of being kinder to Bishop Fellay than many here.”
You’re not the only one TGS. I attempted to make a rational case as to why the Bishop desired to take the SSPX organization under the Vatican umbrella.
I was always taught to look for the good in people first before making a judgement concerning bad intentions and Malachi Martin told me to always remain a realist . Not a brainwashed optimist or disheartening pessimist. it just seems to me that the Society does not have the funding to withstand crippling civil litigations and the Bishop is himself a realist. The only sad part is that I do not think Bishop Fellay or anyone here is really aware of how bad the homosexual communist infiltration of not only the “modernist” seminaries and Diocese’ are, but how much worse it is in Rome itself.
Well said ,My 2 Cents.
This is so true. Thank you for saying it Ignatio. there has not been one single blog on this site that has had anything good to say about anyone ever. Some of the people here are so angry and many just make up things. I think Carl Keating is right that it is just very angry disaffected people and that it is bad.
Gracida Contra Mundum!
A group of nine priests figured it out in 1983:
Perhaps it is time for Skilts and Polska to make their own sausages and start their OWN blog ?
After all by her own admission on this site Polska “has been given the Gift of Discernment”by God Himself !
“For there are amongst us puffed up by pride cowards, and experts, in other words, the self-made theologians, and those who’s wisdom is from below……….to say the least.”
If YOU, Skilts and Polska, do not like this blog or it’s host , then why do you even hang out here ?
Enjoy, Ann is a Traditionalist . She sounds a tad angry too , even more than Louie or anyone else here. You know what folks? Ann is spot on in these posts.
Louie, not sure if you’d be interested, but here is a Sedevacantist bishop’s take on Bishop Fellay’s interview:
“We may be small in comparison to the SSPX, but we are not mixed up. As Garrigou-Lagrange put it: “A thousand idiots do not equal one genius.” Likewise a thousand mixed up priests do not equal one priest with his head screwed on right.”
Sweep don’t forget Ann has far more courage and fortitude than Fellay & Co. She burned a Koran. Fellay and Gleize can’t even bring themselves to burn a copy of Amoris Laetitia. As she said in her own inimitable way recently:
“Folks, we’ve all got to wise up here if there is any hope of prosecuting this war against the infiltrators and forces of evil. When out Lord says, “Be wise as serpents…,” He isn’t just whistling Dixie. The near-unanimous failure of people to grasp these dynamics is really frustrating. You can’t win a war when every general is a doe-eyed Pollyanna constantly looking around and asking, “Why are those angry-looking men pointing guns at us?”” It’s worse in Fellay’s case because he thinks he’s “reasoning” with them and that Jorge, deep down, really does like him: “(He smiles and shows a handwritten note from the Holy Father to him, composed in French, that begins with the salutation Cher frère, cher fils—Dear Brother, dear Son.) Taste of vomit . . . https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-interview-%E2%80%9Cwe-are-disturbing-factor-church%E2%80%9D-39449
Thank you From Poland for posting so many praises for the late Theologian Dietrich and his wife Alice. Now try again to watch Alice’s interview and this time soak it all in before spitting out “Liar” and “fake tabloid news” .
Just skip right over what Voris has to say and listen directly to Alice.
“Dr. Alice von Hildebrand: Stalin ordered communists, in particular gays, to infiltrate seminaries”
This indicates the height of hypocrisy . I suggest a mirror check.
“there are amongst us puffed up by pride cowards, and experts, in other words, the self-made theologians, and those who’s wisdom is from below……….to say the least.”
You may well be right. The SSPX has been touched by the homosexualist frenzy, but one can probably say with confidence not in any way like the Anti-Church which appears riven, even controlled, by it.
Lenny, I have no dog in this fight.
My comment on a possible motivation for the Bishop was just that , an unbiased comment.
After three months in an SSPX chapel and being asked to teach in Ridgefield by the priests, my eyes were opened just as they were around forty years ago with the aberro sexuals that occupy the NO church.
I have no idea about the European seminaries except what was reported however, I do know about Winona and the same kind of sick men who were allowed in there . most of which took the so called high road as Resistance MC.
I also know without a shred of doubt one FSSP pastor who proudly informed us he was homosexual prior to entering their seminary and becoming an FSSP priest. Whether by design as with the NO church, or due to extreme ignorance on the part of a seminary rector , I cannot say.
Correct. The clerics in the SSPX who have un natural desires do not appear to want to remain inside the organization but rather wish to shed oversight.
I did happen to have had a friend whose son became an sspx priest .He was young and not very bright and actually made an appointment to dine with a homosexual NO priest who has a partner.
I believe he was exploring joining the Diocese and since he and his family heard the pastor was very conservative , he made an appointment for dinner and spent time with him in the rectory.
I received calls from rectory employees who were concerned about him due to his youth along with their own knowledge the pastor was an active sodomite and had been grooming boys whose parents removed them from being his altar servers for this very reason.
kilts–Catholics who are witnessing the destruction of Christ’s Church have every right to be angry. If Carl Keating isn’t very angry, I feel sorry for him.
I hope this isn’t too “off topic”, but the info comes from Dr. Peter Chjonowski, one of Louie’s contributors and very believable.
If the V2 “church” would go to all this trouble to deceive, what else are these Modernist perverts capable of. I shudder to think of it.
Sometimes the comments here remind me of the snake consuming it’s tail.
We have a common enemy, Satan, who is very strong and is causing so much pain in so many ways. Why do we give in to his spirit so easily and fight amongst ourselves. The enemy is not your Catholic brother or sister. Chances are if someone is here at this site you have a lot more in common with them than difference.
It is so refreshing to have a website where people can chat and even, act the fool without being reprimanded by a moderator. We should value it and be kind of cautious not to go too far. If sincere Catholics can’t control their words in order to be civil and have discourse, what hope is there. Louie is patient and I want to thank him for the blog.
My 2 Cents , much appreciated !
Here is another small step in the right direction.
Also sent to me by a Traditional Catholic lawyer .Sts Basil and Chrysostom are two of my favorite Saints whose Divine Liturgies I love ! I am convinced they are answering our prayers.
“Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended in kissing or in any shameful situation, shall be publicly flogged and shall lose his clerical tonsure. Thus shorn, he shall be disgraced by spitting in his face, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and for three days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following this period, he shall spend a further six months living in a small segregated courtyard in custody of a spiritual elder, kept busy with manual labor and prayer, subjected to vigils and prayers, forced to walk at all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed to associate with young men.”
– St Basil the Great
Dr. Chjonowski is to be thanked for tackling this matter, but I urge caution for the moment:
1. The results have not been released.
2. The results need to be peer-reviewed to be certain of their 100% accuracy.
3. Before the Modernists can be presented with this specific evidence of their villainy, we need to certain beyond dispute of its veracity.
So hold off from any conclusions as yet.
You’re absolutely right, TGS.
But if that report is beyond reproach, then this, in my view, is the most important news since the Miracle of the Sun.
It will expose to everyone the rot at the heart of the Modernist takeover of the Church.
If there is to any repudiation of the VII errors and full restoration of the TLM, then, as I said before, it will be the exposure of the Fatima cover-up that really starts the balling.
There’s simply no explaining this one away.
correction “starts the ball rolling”
Just heard about this elsewhere. As I said there, if this is true, I am unsure what light this sheds on what we know (or don’t know) about Fatima and what came after it.
If the results are found to be absolutely true, I would hope that the new leadership of the SSPX will make a very definitive statement without any hint of doublespeak. It is impossible to make a deal with an institution that orchestrated this elaborate deception. How many other deceptions are they guilty of?
And what does the Third Secret REALLY say?
Just a wild speculation.
That the homosexual communist party members will infiltrate the Church seminaries in massive numbers so as to rise into the Hierarchy in order to destroy the dogma of the Faith ?
Did you say “speculation”? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What else could explain this very thorough corrupted, perverted infestation to the very core? Planned and thoroughly executed by the Father of Lies and his helpers. Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us!
Dear My 2 Cents………it was sarcasm aimed at the accusations of
“conspiracy theory” “liar” and just “gossip and hearsay” that troll this blog , who claim the mystical “Gift from God of Discernment”, offering to bake me a plum cake and sit down for tea in an effort to identify as charitable. All ironically pathetic and actually funny too.
Because there are none so blind who cannot see.
sweep–I understood that your comment was sarcastic (wish there was a font for that!). Like you, I’m baffled at those who cannot see the forest for the trees.
This is off topic too.However holding back donations to starve the sodomite church will hardly dent their funding as a big part of tax dollars from the Fed goes to servicing illegal immigrants.
Re the appalling news of Bergoglio’s change to settled teaching of 2,000 years, I urge everyone to read the Rorate Caeli article on the matter.
I (and very many others) now have to decide what is one’s stance with regard to this heretic.
1. Continue to see him as Pope but reject his teachings;
2. See him as an Anti-Pope and withdraw all contact/communion with him;
3. Become a sedevacantist.
No decisions made as yet, and maybe not for a while. I have rejected (3) for reasons other than Bergoglio’s change to any teaching, so that’s not an option. I cannot easily call him an “Anti-Pope” because in the Church’s history an anti-Pope has always been accompanied by a real Pope (even if at times even Saints didn’t always know who was the real one).
I fear that he may be worse than an Anti-Pope or even no Pope. I fear that he may be the False Prophet of St. John’s Apocalypse.
Another ridiculous LIE from sweepINthefilth. Why do you not research your lies before you are saying them. Washington Times says Caholic Church gets MAXIMUM of $500MM yearly for refugees etc. from US Governmennt. Wikipedia says that US parishes budgets are $100B. That means Church gets one half of one percent of their budget from US Government. The total US Government budget is $4.147T. So $500MM that goes to Church is 0.01%. That is one one hundredth of a percent. It is not a “big part of tax dollars”. Also your LIE is off topic. You can’t control yourself and say anyone who points out the Truth is a troll.
A big part of THEIR funding comes from YOUR tax dollars .What the hell is wrong with you? Can’t you read or think? CMtv has the breakdown in a pie chart.
The topic of the statement was the USCCB’s funding and not the Government’s .
Skilts of adhominem attacks …
The majority of your nonsense posts are off topic .
So the death penalty is always wrong according to the NEW church teachings ?
Thanks TGS, just came into my inbox from an astounded Catholic lawyer.
What next? Pederast sodomy is a normal natural sex outlet for ecclesiastics ?
Oh wait, they’re working up to declaring that one.
My guess is that the sodomite clergy need to eliminate the death penalty because Moses was instructed to stone sodomites. If they can make captital punishment a sin and basically rewrite the Old Testament, well they will have free reign to rewrite the New Testament next.
“What the hell is wrong with you? Cant you read or think?”
“Skills of ad hominem attacks.”
Also says sweepINthefilth
Hypocrite, too, now.
Please reread my comment. The total budget of the Catholic Church in the US is $100B, that’s one hundred billion. How much of that is from the government? You don’t know do you? Voris says $2.9B. OK that is probably high but let’s say he’s right. So that is still only 2.9%. You are tying to hide behind your sloppy wording because you cannot admit when you are wrong or lying. Why do you insist on misleading people???
Also my posts are not off topic. You keep writing garbage and bullying Fleur and From
Poland and spreading lies, nobody else has the courage to stand up to you because you shout everyone down.
If Bergoglio wasn’t a formal heretic before this change to the Catechism (he was), then he certainly is one now. He’s gone far further than JPII, who admitted the possibility of capital punishment’s use even if he argued for its effective elimination in those countries where criminals can be contained long-term at public expense.
But Bergoglio says the death penalty is anti-Gospel.
This is sheer blasphemy, for the Gospel envisages its use. Even the Good Thief on his cross admitted that his punishment was just.
Prudence of His Excellency bp Fellay was clearly manifested during famous interview with Tim Sebastian.
That was a pure disgrace, unfortunately.
Agreed and perhaps it is past time we all should be re reading the book of the Apocalypse cross referencing it to Christ’s teachings on the End Times and the OT prophets. I do know St John Chrysostom explained to his parishioners that when they asked , why did Jesus say the End Times would be worse than the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, he told them it was because many of his Ministers would be sexually perverse.
Are we really witnessing the False Prophet in the person of Borgoglio?
………and Skiltsy your posts mean nothing to me. I rarely shout even in person. Just wondering if English is your second language though.
I hope that the full condemnation of V2 and NOM will come from revealing the Third Secret. Yesterday (1.08.2018) the first tiny step towards right direction was done. The Sister Lucy impostor was scientifically proved to be fake.
The consequences are hard to evaluate but all Fatima narration has to be changed.
The modernists/satanists/faggs think like chess masters – five moves ahead. Yes, they probably are scared of consequences.
Yes, and Church teaching can now “evolve” to mean the exact opposite of what it has always meant. Clever to start with the death penalty, as there likely won’t be too much opposition. Then other doctrine will change also, possibilities are limitless. Everything can evolve because we understand everything so much better today. The pace of destruction is accelerating, and, with the exception of 95-year-old Bishop Gracida, no significant challenge from our shepherds (this includes the SSPX and Sedevacantist bishops).
Catholics, including many prelates and priests have lost any care for the truth, in Faith, morals or otherwise. Everywhere is diabolic disorientation, the result of darkened intellects and hardened hearts, due to the longterm state of mortal sin.
The diabolic evil one world secret tyrannical government has much of the institutional Church in its service. Lord, have mercy upon us.
He has for over five years exceeded papal authority by attacking immutable truths of the Holy Faith, and morals – God’s Laws.
The apostates keep the death “penalty” for the manifestly innocent, and defenceless – the children from conception to birth, the chronically- , severely-ill persons, the elderly, etc. Lord, come to our aid.
There is no doubt he is a false prophet, as he has constantly attacked the Faith, even the most fundamental moral law knowable to everyone of the age of reason. He has subverted the 10 Commandments and repacef th with his own evil commandments.
The false assertion that there is an absolute prohibition by God on “legitmate human authorities exercising the death penalty, pales in comparison to his attacks on the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Matrimony, and more, by instituting a clear policy of sacrilege on the part of priest and communicant through the scandalous reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour by a communicant who is not only in a state of mortal sin but publicly and obstinately so, encouraged by the priest and his superiors.
Yes, Lynda, but the “beauty” of Bergoglio’s assault on the teaching of the Church in this case makes it clear even to those who might have been befuddled by the ‘mercy’ claims of his attack on the moral and sacramental teaching you refer to, that the man is a rank heretic. The death penalty is a much more binary and clear-cut issue for most people.
The question is, ‘What happens now?”
Is there no final red line beyond which even the Novus Ordo Hierarchy will not go?
Bishop Fellay, who has been, until recently, the head of the Society of Saint Pius X for the past twenty-four years, gave an interview to Tagespost in which he said a few things which deserve attention.
The first is this: “We have never said that the Council directly taught any heresies. But it took away the wall of protection from error, and thereby permitted error to show itself.”
Is this an accurate statement? Did Vatican II merely expose the Church to error? Or did it actually contain heresies? Answer: It contained heresies.
The first heresy of Vatican II: ecumenism. The document Unitatis Redintegratio, or the Decree on Ecumenism, contains a glaring heresy against the Catholic dogma which teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states:
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3] [Emphasis added].
The Catholic Church teaches as dogma — it was called a “most well-known Catholic dogma” by Pius IX — that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states the precise contradictory of the Catholic dogma, namely that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, that these non-Catholic religions can deliver salvation to their adherents, and are indeed the means by which they are saved. This is heresy.
The second heresy of Vatican II: religious liberty. The Catholic Church, professing to be the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation, understands religious liberty to be the liberty of the Catholic Church to carry out its mission in the world, to establish itself everywhere, to function freely as an entity distinct from the State. It also claims the liberty of its adherents to profess and practice their Catholic faith without harassment or molestation.
It condemns the idea, as being contrary to Sacred Scripture, that all religions have these same liberties and these same rights. For to assert such a thing would be the same as saying that a person or organization would have a right to do something wrong. But this is contrary to the natural law, and therefore contrary to the Church’s teaching. You can have a right only to do something right, and never a right to do something wrong.
Liberty is the power of electing the good. License is the freedom falsely accorded to the will to elect evil. In order that there be the exercise of true liberty, it is necessary that it not detract from any duty. For liberty does not exist for evil, but for the good. Therefore, for as often as man abuses liberty for the purpose of committing evil, it should not be called liberty but instead license.
Liberty of conscience is absolutely impious. For man is by a most strict duty bound to think correctly about God, and concerning those things which regard both speculative and practical religion. But to go against a most strict duty of nature is license, not liberty. If we are talking about a voluntary transgression of our duty toward God, the aforesaid license is impiety. Because, therefore, through liberty of conscience the right is given to man to think concerning God however he pleases, this liberty, this right, is truly an impiety.
The liberty of religions, considered in itself, is absurd. This proposition is proven by what has been already said. For the liberty of religions is inferred only from the liberty of conscience. Because liberty of conscience is absurd, it follows also that the liberty of religions is absurd. But more must be said. If one concedes the liberty of religions, one takes away from God the power of imposing a determined worship upon men, and one imposes upon God a certain obligation of accepting or at least of approving any form of worship shown to Him by human reason. But God has commanded a form of worship — the Catholic religion. Consequently He is not obliged to accept just any form of worship that human beings give Him. It follows that men cannot, without obvious irreligion and impiety reject the precepts of God, and be the arbiters of their own worship. On the other hand, it is an impiety to deny to God the faculty of determining worship, and to impose some kind of duty upon Him of approving all forms of worship indiscriminately. Therefore the liberty of religions is absurd.
Vatican II, however, teaches that liberty of religion for the individual and for religious organizations is a right which flows from the notion of human dignity. Furthermore, it says that this teaching concerning human dignity is contained in revelation, but gives no reference where in revelation God guarantees the right to believe and practice whatever religion you want.
Vatican II teaches in Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 2:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
Some try to defend the Council by saying that the only thing it means is that no one should be converted to Catholicism by the sword. The Church has always taught that conversion should not take place in such a manner, and has condemned any attempt to do so. That this is not the intention of the Council can be seen from the paragraphs subsequent to the one cited above:
The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.
Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transfer-ral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
Those of us who have lived in a country such as the United States, where the religious liberty described in these paragraphs is considered a normal, even sacred, civil right, fail to see the malice of these words. If we substitute “abortion” for “religion,” the point might become clearer: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to an abortion.” “Abortion clinics are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of abortion itself.” “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, abortion clinics rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, publicly perform abortions, assist their members in the practice of abortion, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their abortion principles.”
Need I go on? It should be pointed out here that, as heinous a crime as abortion is, the profession of a false religion is far more heinous in God’s sight, being directly contrary to His solemn rights. It is not to be forgotten that in Exodus (chapter 32) God ordered the slaying of all those who had participated in the worship of the golden calf, and who had not repented of it. The number of those slain was 23,000. This momentous event was to demonstrate to the Hebrew people the necessity of adhering to the true religion, and of shunning false religions. According to Vatican II, Moses should have proclaimed religious liberty for all of the calf-worshippers.
Religious liberty, as it is taught by Vatican II, is in-deed a heresy. It is solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX as being against the Scriptures. Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre considered religious liberty to be a heresy. He said exactly this to Fr. Cekada in a dinner conversation at Oyster Bay.
The third heresy of Vatican II: The new ecclesiology. By ecclesiology we mean the Church’s doctrine concerning its own nature, that is, its essence and characteristics. Vatican II teaches a heretical ecclesiology. It is contained in Lumen Gentium.
The traditional dogma of the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church, and it alone, is the one true Church of Christ, and that therefore any entity outside of itself is a false religion. This includes even those schismatic religions of the East which may have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. If you are cut off from the center — the pope — you are nothing but a dead branch that has fallen off the vine.
Vatican II altered this doctrine in order to include other Christian denominations in the Church of Christ, saying that the Church of Christ, as an organized body, subsists in the Catholic Church.
What does it mean to subsist in? Subsistence is a perfection of a thing whereby it exists on its own, and not in something else. For example, a color cannot exist on its own, but must always exist in something else, e.g., paint, a flower, a cloth. That “something else” must have its own subsistence.
Applying this to ecclesiology, if the Church of Christ does not subsist on its own, but must subsist in something else, it means that the Church of Christ is really distinct from what it subsists in, namely that they are by nature two different things. It means that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. If they were by nature not two different things, then they would be the same thing, and it would be necessary to say the the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is precisely the dogma of the Catholic Church.
The “subsists in” doctrine also means that the Church of Christ could subsist in something else, like the Lutheran Church, for example.
While this doctrine does wonders for the heresy of ecumenism and religious liberty, it destroys the Church’s teaching that the Catholic Church is exclusively the Church of Christ, and vice versa. The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same, and exclusively so, meaning that no other “Christian” organization can call itself the Church of Christ in any way whatsoever. The only appropriate name for them is a heretical or schismatic sect.
The fourth heresy of Vatican II: Collegiality. This doctrine, also contained in Lumen Gentium, holds that the subject (possessor) of supreme power in the Church is the college of bishops. Listen to the Council:
The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.
This is heresy. For the Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church. Listen to the Council of Florence: “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that the full power was given to him in Blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.” (Decree for the Greeks, July 6, 1439)
Pope Pius VI condemned this doctrine: “All the bishops together and in one body govern the same Church, each one with full power.”
Some try to save Vatican II from heresy by saying that the Council states that the pope is the head of the college, and that it cannot act without him. But this does not save it from heresy, because the pope in that case simply becomes another member of the college of bishops, and merely a condition of their power, but not the source of their power.
Others try to save the Council by pointing out that the document asserts that the Pope is the head of the Church: “In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” This is a futile attempt, however. No organization can have two heads, two supreme legislators. For example, it is impossible that both king and parliament be the supreme legislator. One must have the last word, to whom the other is subservient. King Charles I of England lost his head by upholding the supremacy of the king over parliament.
Yet others try to save the Council by citing the Preliminary Note of Explanation (the Nota Prævia), but this is worthless, since it is not part of the document accepted by the bishops. The modernist theologian Yves Congar was swift to point this out when he was a peritus at the Council. Besides, there is nothing in the Nota Prævia which cancels out the conciliarist heresy in the document.
The Catholic doctrine is that the pope, as supreme head of the Church, may invite the bishops into a general council, in which, by his consent, they participate in his power to rule the Church. Apart from these general councils, the authority of bishops is confined to their dioceses. The power to rule the diocese is from Christ, but comes to them through the Roman Pontiff, who may remove the power from them whenever he will. Pope Pius XII taught in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “Yet in exercising this office they [the bishops] are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” (no. 42)
Bishop Fellay sells out to the Modernists on the Council. About a year ago, the Vatican told the Society of Saint Pius X that there could be no hope of reconciliation unless the SSPX accepts Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium. By saying that there is no heresy in Vatican II, Bishop Fellay is saying that Vatican II is orthodox, that is, Catholic, and is not offensive to the Catholic Faith.
If that be so, then what have we been doing for the past fifty years?
Bishop Fellay also sells out on the question of the New Mass. Bishop Fellay makes this remark-able statement: “Not every New Mass is a scandal directly, but the repeated celebration of the New Mass leads to a weakening or even a loss of faith.”
Question: how could it not be a scandal if it leads to a loss of faith? How could an infallible and indefectible Church, the Church of Christ, assisted by the Holy Ghost, the pillar and ground of truth, as St.Paul calls it, promulgate to the whole world a rite which leads to the loss of faith? Bishop Fellay’s statement falls under the anathema of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety, let him be anathema.”
Bishop Fellay states in this same interview that the traditional Mass is like a silver trumpet, whereas the New Mass is like a brass trumpet:
I say only that if you are receiving a head of State, and you have the choice between a silver trumpet and a brass trumpet, would you choose the brass trumpet? It would be an insult. You would not do it. Even the best New Masses are like trumpets of brass, in comparison to the traditional liturgy. For God, we would choose what is better.
The only conclusion to draw from this statement is that the New Mass is a Catholic Mass but it is merely inferior to the traditional Mass. After all, they are both trumpets! The silver one is merely nicer than the brass one. I think a better analogy would have been to compare the New Mass not to a brass trumpet, but to a giant elephant passing gas.
Bishop Fellay, until recently, was the head of the organization which purports to be the bulwark of tradition, the single hope of the Catholic faithful who want to be protected from Vatican II and its reforms. Yet he is all mixed up in regard to the highest guiding principles of resistance to Vatican II. On the one hand he says that the New Mass weakens or destroys your faith — which means that it is poison — and then a few lines later says that it is a brass trumpet and not a silver one, indicating that there is merely a difference of quality between the two Masses.
It is for this reason that we rejoice over our separation from the SSPX in 1983. We saw the seeds of this utter theological confusion, this theology à la Maxine Waters, and wanted no part of it.
We may be small in comparison to the SSPX, but we are not mixed up. As Garrigou-Lagrange put it: “A thousand idiots do not equal one genius.” Likewise a thousand mixed up priests do not equal one priest with his head screwed on right.
It sounds like you believe that I’m picking a fight and going to far in my comments? If that’s the case, you are accusing me falsely and need to apologize.
“My couch is drenched with tears” because of the disunity in the Church and the traditional movement. Otherwise Jesus took the blame for my sins, I will certainly take the blame for the disunity in the Church since you so desire to blame me for some strange reason. If I’m to blame, I will fix the problem, tomorrow Bishop Fellay will condemn the heresies of Vatican II. Problem solved! Bishop Williamson will then be invited back into the SSPX and we will all be united.
If you study the discernment of spirits by St. Ignatius of Loyola and also Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, you would know that evil spirits as well as good spirits visit the saints. Yes our common enemy is Satan, but when the faithful fail to properly discern spirits, good people go along with Satan.
Someone somewhere else in these comments sections made a typo when referring to some historical Pope. Immediately someone else caught on to that and said that we now have Pope Prius I.