All You Need to Know About Bishop Fellay

All You Need to Know About Bishop Fellay

By: TrueTrad

The strong evidence against Bishop Fellay

Let us make it clear immediately about what we write below:  we have nothing personal against Bishop Fellay.  Some of us at TrueTrad have met him, and most of us agree that he is charming and likeable.  He has confirmed some of our children.  He has ordained some of the priests that bring us the sacraments.  But respect for the man himself (as opposed to his office) has its limits.  Bishop Fellay has somehow lost his way over the years, which his actions and speech now clearly show.  We do not know how it happened.  It could be the tremendous pressure he and his colleagues are under.  It could be from brushing elbows with modernists in the Vatican.   Rome has the best and most persuasive diplomats the world has ever known.

In any case, we present here a large stack of evidence against Bishop Fellay.  Please keep in mind that all of these problems with Bishop Fellay are in addition to the poison which he allows to regularly come from the SSPX communication outlets (dici.org, sspx.org, etc).

---

1. Man of Contradictions

One way to see that Bishop Fellay is truly a different man than he was a few years ago, is to see our list of many contradictory statements between today's Bishop Fellay and the "former Bishop Fellay" we all knew and respected.  These contradictions are eye-opening.

2. Scandalous Interviews and Articles

See our commentary on his infamous May, 2012 CNS video interview - the interview which scandalized most of the traditional Catholic world.
See our commentary on his 6/7/2012 interview with DICI (the SSPX's own newsservice).
See our commentary on the March, 2013 release of his secret Doctrinal Preamble response (written to Cardinal Levada in April 2012).  This document, which showed Rome what the SSPX was willing to agree to, clearly shows that Bishop Fellay has betrayed Tradition, and is willing to make terrible compromises.

3. Bishop Fellay has weakened on the New Mass

• See our 1-23-2013 commentary on his incredibly scandalous comment to Cardinal Canizares, in favor of the novus ordo mass.   Although he has said many scandalous things, this one is particularly revealing.
• See this article on Bishop Fellay's 2-15-2013 comments about the new mass.   In it, he
  • Quite clearly implies that the new mass itself is not the problem, but the problem is merely bad translations, etc.
  • Implies that it is okay for the mass to be translated into, and said in the vernacular
• See this article on his 10-19-2012 comments about the new mass (made during the Angelus Press Papacy conference).  There, Bishop Fellay implies that most, but not all of the time, we Catholics will not approve of the new mass.

4. Bishop Fellay has weakened on Vatican II

In contrast with the past, Bp. Fellay no longer answers with a clear “No!”, when asked if Vatican II is consistent with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church from the time of the apostles. When a person is coming to discover Catholic Tradition for the first time, one of the very first things he learns is the answer that Bp. Fellay will no longer give, viz., that Vatican II has many errors and teaches the opposite of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on many subjects. (As a single example of errors in Vatican II, see how it teaches the opposite of Catholic truth condemning religious liberty for error: http://www.scribd.com/doc/46116957/Social-Kingship-of-Our-Lord.)

4.1. Bp. Fellay says he “would hope” that Vatican II belongs to the Tradition of the Church

Bishop Fellay:

“As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, ‘I would like to hope that that is the case’ (which a faulty French translation transformed into: ‘I hope so.’)”  [The parenthetical comment is in the DICI original.]

Bishop Fellay used to speak differently; he used to frequently speak out strongly and unequivocally against the documents of Vatican II.  Here is just one example: In 2004, he said:

“There are evil things in the Council …; they are really poisonous.” http://www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2351.  New link:  http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2351

There are “countless” other instances of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the rest of the SSPX leadership stating that Vatican II is full of error and poison.
How can Bishop Fellay “hope” there are no errors in the council?   Bishop Fellay is a bishop of the Catholic Church, charged with teaching against the principal errors of our time (especially in Vatican II).   He is the leader of Catholic Tradition and he is saying that he would like to "hope" that all of the teachings of Vatican II are harmonious with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church!  Does he not know one way or the other?  It is irrational to hope for what you know to be false!  For example, it is irrational to hope that all of Martin Luther’s teachings belong to Catholic Tradition!
If a person would excuse Bishop Fellay on this statement, he must also excuse any leader of Catholic tradition if he were to say that: “I would like to hope that Martin Luther never founded a false religion”, or if he said: “I would like to hope that homosexuality is pleasing to God and is a good means for a Catholic to save his soul”.

4.2. Bp. Fellay claims Traditionalists are misunderstanding the Council

Bishop Fellay:

“…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….]. Many people understand wrongly the Council”.   CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23.

The notorious heretic Archbishop Müller (appointed head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope Benedict!) says basically the same thing:

“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”  http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/12/19/head-of-the-cdf-urges-catholics-to-welcome-ordinariate-converts/

4.3. Bp. Fellay and religious liberty

Bishop Fellay said this:

Religious liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it.  The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!”  Bishop Fellay interview – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics

Note that Bishop Fellay does not condemn the error of religious liberty! He contented himself with saying that this (supposed) right “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” Bishop Fellay is a bishop of the Catholic Church and the leader of Catholic Tradition! Where is his condemnation of this error, which is one of the principal religious errors of our time?

The false notion of freedom for religious error, has been condemned continually by the Catholic Church since the earliest times of the Church. But, in place of any condemnation of this crucial error, Bishop Fellay contents himself with saying that the error “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” But that error is a very potent poison! When a pie has a very potent poison, one should not content himself with assuring people that the pie contains “a very, very small amount of arsenic: very small”.

Is this a clear defense of the true Catholic Faith and a condemnation of one of the principal religious errors of our time? Or is Bishop Fellay minimizing the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, and self-censoring, in order to seek harmony with those enemies of Catholic Tradition, under whose control he would like to place the SSPX?  He is acting just like the 9 dead compromise societies act!

Further, not only did Bishop Fellay fail to condemn religious liberty, but he said that this (false) right declared by the council, “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” Bishop Fellay is plainly wrong about this. Here is what the council itself says:

“[N]or is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others....” Documents of Vatican II, Fr. Abbott (General Editor), Dignitatis Humanae, pp. 679-80 (emphasis added).

Vatican II teaches that this religious liberty “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.” Id. Vatican II does say that religious liberty has “due limits” but makes clear that these limits concern peace and safety: “nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed.” Id.

So Vatican II says that this (false) right to religious liberty is entirelyunlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence! Instead of being “very, very limited”, it is the same very broad “right” espoused by the Freemasons in Article 10 of the French Revolution’s 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which declares: “No one can be molested for his opinions, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.”

How different is the “new” Bishop Fellay, from the one consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre! A mere eight years ago, Bishop Fellay saw more clearly than he does now He quoted something Archbishop Lefebvre said to Pope Paul VI:

“All the popes before you, all the popes of the last century-in Quas Primas, Quanta Cura-have said there is no religious liberty or have taught it only in a very specific way, which is the liberty of the only true religion. Now you are saying the contrary. So whom are we to obey?  2004 sermon at http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2351.

It is completely unbelievable that Menzingen would claim (as it does) that the problem was that Bishop Fellay was taken out of context. Suppose there were a CNS videointerview of you which somehow took you out of context, to have you state that “Baal is God”. And suppose this video was known and viewed all around the world. If you felt you were quoted out of context, would you make no attempt to specifically proclaim that Baal is not God? Would you simply say (as Menzingen does) “well, it was a long video and my statement that ‘Baal is God’ was taken out of its longer context”? That is ridiculous!
No amount of spin can change what Bishop Fellay has said. No string of excuses can change the fact that he has not clearly taught since that interview, that there is no right to religious liberty for false religions and that this very idea is insanity. He has not taught since this interview that Vatican II’s proclamation of this Masonic “right” is anti-Catholic and is in complete contradiction to the consistent teachings of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Sacred Writers from the beginning of the Church and furthermore, that Vatican II’s proclamation of that “right” was a very, very broad one: very broad! [This last italic phrase is the truth and is the direct opposite of what Bp. Fellay said.]

4.4. Bp. Fellay and Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (Vatican II document on the Jews)

Bp. Fellay says:

“[T]he Society of St. Pius X can accept ‘some points’ of  [Vatican II’s document on the Jews] Nostra Aetate.” Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm.

We are sure this is true: there are “some points” which any Catholic can accept of any document of Vatican II. That is true, just like there are “some points” of Martin Luther’s writings any true Catholic can accept. However, it would be totally scandalous and misleading for a Catholic to say this about Martin Luther – how much more so, a Catholic Bishop and leader of Catholic Tradition!  Of course, those naive and weak soldiers of Christ who have lost their fighting spirit, will say that Bp. Fellay does not explicitly accept any errors here.  However, that is because we weak soldiers of Christ look for any excuse not to fight for our Faith.  We are willing to parse words and seek any interpretation which allows us to remain asleep.

The Jews are much more zealous for their false faith than we are for the true Faith.  Picture Bp. Fellay saying that “[T]he Society of St. Pius X can accept ‘some points’ of” the writings and teachings of Adolph Hitler.  The Jews and media would howl like mad dogs – and rightly so!  If Bp. Fellay were to defend such a statement by saying that “well, Hitler did say some things which are fine”, the Jews and media would never accept such a feeble excuse, although weak-spirited traditional Catholics accept a similar excuse when Bp. Fellay says he would accept “some points” of Nostra Aetate.

How misleading it would be for a parent to say that we “accept as healthy some part of this [poison] pie”.  It might be true that some part of the whole pie will not kill you.  However, common sense says don’t parse the crumbs of the pie to find non-poison parts.  A pie containing poison is too dangerous to eat.  Bp. Fellay use to know this analogous truth about Vatican II (see his quote above) but now he just promotes acceptance of parts of Vatican II, without thundering any condemnations of anything.

4.5. Bishop Fellay has stated that the Society accepts 95% of Vatican II's teachings.”   

You can see that in this interview:  http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_4_12-19-2012.htm
The truth is that all 13 texts of Vatican II are completely infested with error.   None are traditional.  What an extremely dangerous thing to say, knowing that we weak Catholics easily misunderstand things.  Many amongst us, looking for the easy way out, will take statements like that and run with it.
Bishop Fellay, by stating this 95% figure, gives us a good example of the sort of sugarcoating diplomacy now being exercised by the new SSPX, concerning not only Vatican II, but the modernist clergy, etc.  One looks almost in vain through the SSPX websites for the sort of hard-hitting, clear, and untempered commentary and condemnation of modern errors that one could formerly expect.  The SSPX is truly beginning to look and feel like the other nine dead organizations were before they made deals with Rome.    Bishop Fellay, as Bishop Williamson explains,   "claims that he was speaking of the letter and not of the spirit of the texts. However, what mother will give to her children any part of a cake which she knows is 5% poisoned?  It is true that she could in theory give them any part of the 95% not poisoned, but in practice will she not be afraid of the poisoning spirit behind all parts of the cake ?"

---

5. Bishop Fellay's Accomodation to the World's Erroneous Opinions

5.1. Bp. Fellay talks like the conciliar church regarding the Jews, in general

In a 2012 interview he gave about the SSPX/Catholic position on the Jews, Bishop Fellay said:

It “does not reflect mainstream thinking in the SSPX to see ‘Jews as ‘enemies of the Gospel’, who seek the ‘corruption and ruin’ of Christians”.

"I don't think that in any talk or sermon, I ever talked about the Jewish question," he said. "It's not an issue for us."

"The topic (of the Jews) is very, very delicate, very delicate, and should be handled with the greatest care," the bishop added. "We don't want at all to provoke and to make unnecessary turmoil in the world."

(All of this is quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm )

5.2. How Truly Catholic prelates should speak about the Jews

Contrast Bp. Fellay’s statements to the real teaching of the Catholic Church. Here are quotes from both SSPX leaders, and Fathers/Doctors/Saints on the subject of the Jews:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre	Named “the Jews, the Communists and the Freemasons" as "declared enemies of the church" in a 1985 letter to [Pope] John Paul II.
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais	Said in 1997 that "the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist." Id.
Pope Leo XIII	Considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamoring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times.  Pope Leo’s Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus has the entire Church praying to God that He turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, [who] called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior”.  So, as Pope Leo XIII plainly says, it was the “race” which is cursed, not just a few dead guys.
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori	Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads in saying: "His blood be on us AND ON OUR CHILDREN!" (Mt.27:25); and that curse you carry upon you till this day, you miserable race, and to the end of time shall you endure the chastisement of that innocent Blood.”  Emphasis added.
Pope Innocent III	“[T]he Jews, against whom the blood of Christ calls out, although they ought not be killed, nevertheless as wanderers they must remain upon the earth until their faces be filled with shame and they seek the name of Jesus Christ the Lord.”
St. Augustine	“The Jews wander over the entire earth, their backs bent and their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they carry with them.”
St. John Chrysostom	“But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God!  Who say so?  The Son of God say so.  For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me.  But you neither know me nor do you know my Father".  Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?  If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons?  God is not worshipped there.  Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.”(Sermon 1 Against the Jews):  Emphasis added.
Pope Gregory IX	“Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness granted.  They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt.  See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that in servile fear they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin.”
St. Thomas Aquinas	“It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime.”

Ones sees that, by comparing the Catholic teaching regarding the Jews to Bp. Fellay’s statements about them, it is evident that he sounds much more like the conciliar popes and Vatican II, than he does, the Catholic teaching.

5.3. Bp. Fellay adopts the position of the world and the conciliar church: Anyone who even dares to question the number of Jews who died in WWII concentration camps is anti-Semitic.

Bp. Fellay uses the world’s fuzzy “reasoning” to condemn Bp. Williamson of anti-Semitism.  As Bp Fellay said in 2009: “The position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our Society.  Anti-Semitism has no place in our ranks.  We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church.  Anti-Semitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it.”  Rorate Coeli 2-2-09 (emphasis added).  Do you have any shred of doubt that, when Bp. Fellay invokes the church’s condemnation of anti-Semitism, he is talking about the conciliar church, not the popes, fathers, doctors and other sacred writers, throughout Church history?  Look at the list of quotes above, showing the sort of thing that the Catholic Church taught about the Jews before Vatican II.  Bishop Fellay opposes himself to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and aligns himself with the conciliar church and the world’s false notion of anti-Semitism.

Note: We are not claiming that it was prudent for Bp. Williamson to wade into the historical issue of the number of Jews killed in World War II, nor do we know the historical truth about exactly how many of any group died in WWII.  But this is not the point: the point is that Bishop Fellay, instead of limiting himself to merely pointing out the possible imprudence of Bp. Williamson in opening up that can of worms, actually goes much further:  He acts against Catholic Tradition by implying that anyone who questions any of the Jewish claims, or who is “hard on the Jews” in any way, is anti-Semitic.

5.4. Just like the modern popes, Bishop Fellay flees from the glorious history of the Catholic Church and the work of many of the Church’s greatest and most saintly popes.

The saints and popes of old all realized what great dangers certain perfidious Jews presented to Catholic society and church.   These great men of old had no problem recommending, or even commanding, Catholic kings and leaders to separate the troublemaking Jews from their societies.
Well, Bishop Fellay seems embarrassed to share their views.  Bishop Fellay denied sharing the opinion of these great Catholic men of old, an opinion which: “Justif[ies] the ‘discipline of the ghetto’, which the church imposed on Jews until the ‘de-Christianized’ modern age, [and which sought] a kind of apartheid between the religions to permit the restoration of Christian civilization.”  Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm. 

5.5. The SSPX is purging Catholic teaching from its websites and magazines, about the Jews and many other topics.

Many have noticed that the SSPX has been purging its websites of strong Catholic teaching. To take a single example reported by Catholic News Service: “[I]n 2009, … the society's U.S. website (www.sspx.org) removed articles arguing that the ‘Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide’, and that the ‘Jewish people, if it has not converted to Christianity, will, even if it does not wish to, seek to ruin Christianity.’”  Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm.

5.6. Bp. Fellay accepts Pope John Paul II’s favorite phrase that the Jews are our “elder brothers”

No amount of SSPX leadership "damage control" can take away the scandal of this statement.  Bp. Fellay aligns himself with this false conciliar theology, even though Bp. Fellay distinguishes his statement in muted tones, from Pope John Paul II’s statement. 

The problem is not that this phrase cannot possibly have a true application to the Jews, just like it can apply, in a way, to modern day Muslim Arabs, who are also Semites and who also biologically come from ancestors who had the true Old Testament Faith.  The problem here is just the same as his accepting “some points” of the Vatican II document on the Jews - Nostra Aetate:  the problem is the scandal and confusion he causes and his impulse to talk like the conciliar hierarchy, and by his failure to make careful distinctions, and failing to reiterate strong and solid traditional Catholic teaching on the subject.

6. Bishop Fellay minimizes the problems in the Conciliar Church

Bishop Fellay and his assistants have repeatedly shown by words and actions that they fail to firmly hold Archbishop Lefebvre's principle:  Never trust Modernist Rome!   This is especially tragic because we have especially the examples of the 9 dead organizations which Modernist Rome has all but destroyed.  Yet Bishop Fellay continued to press (and still is seeking) his desire for a practical agreement with the deadly modernists in Rome.

6.1. Bp. used to, but now rarely makes the distinction between the false, Concilar Church and the True Catholic Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre saw and preached this distinction regularly.   There are many examples of him distinguishing a new, modernist church from the True Catholic Church - the "Conciliar Church"  (Just one example of this is his Declaration of November 21, 1974:  "We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth.  Because of this adherence we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo‑Modernist and neo‑Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.")

Bishop Fellay used to also talk this way.  For several years now however, one can hardly find him referring to the conciliar church.  He fails to distinguish the True from the false church at all when talking about issues of obedience, loyalty to the Pope, etc.

6.2. Bp. Fellay now thinks the doctrinal disputes between Rome and the SSPX are a “secondary problem”!

For Bishop Fellay, the doctrinal horrors gripping Rome are a “secondary problem”, and there are somehow bigger problems.  Here is what he said:

“We must set aside the secondary problems [doctrinal differences between the SSPX and Rome] and deal with the major problems [in the Church]."  6-8-2012 DICI interview

Read the interview for yourself. We are not taking Bp. Fellay out of context.  It is impossible for there to be bigger problems than Rome’s doctrinal problems, which are the principle errors of our time, which we must fight against!

6.3. Bishop Fellay now thinks the pope favors Catholic Tradition.

Bishop Fellay now says the pope supports Catholic Tradition:

"We have great expectations for the traditional apostolate, just as some important personages in Rome do, and the Holy Father himself."  6-8-2012 DICI interview

Yet Bishop Fellay also acknowledges that the pope is a modernist.  As Bp. Fellay said recently, Pope Benedict XVI “is totally in favor of ecumenism and religious liberty”.  http://www.cfnews.org/fellay-40th.htm.  This pope also called the Assisi III ecumenical prayer meeting of world religions.  This pope also appointed modernist Abp. Muller to be the chief guardian of the Catholic Faith, even though Bishop Muller denies various dogmas of the Faith, including the perpetual virginity of our Lady.

7. Bishop Fellay (and the SSPX) are weakening on other topics

7.1. Bp. Fellay has changed, at least implicitly, his view regarding whether we are in the Catholic Church.

Bishop Fellay criticized the three other SSPX bishops on April 14, 2012, because they (supposedly) “refuse to work in the vineyard [of our Lord] because there are still many weeds”!
Bp. Fellay used to say the opposite.  Here is the way he used to talk:

“It is very important that you have the right understanding of obedience, because we are called "rebels" and other labels which you know by heart by now.  It is just not true.  It is like when Rome says to us, "Come back."  We say, "We are sorry, but we can't." Why?-Because we are already in; we have never been away, so where do you want us to come back from? We are already in.”  Quoted from: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2351.

All of the 9 dead compromise societies began talking the way Bp. Fellay now does, shortly before making their own deal with Rome.

7.2. Bp. Fellay now thinks the indult/motu Mass is fine in principle, for SSPX faithful.

Bishop Fellay now says there is no reason in principle for SSPX faithful not to attend the indult Mass but that it should be done (or not done), on a case-by-case basis.  http://web.archive.org/web/20100921023539/http://www.dici.org/en/documents/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-roodepoort-south-africa-september-15th-2009/

The Society used to say that SSPX faithful should never attend the indult Mass.  See, for examples:
1.    “Archbishop Lefebvre wisely warned that it is better to go to no Mass than attend or support such an approved Latin Mass.”  See, Fr. Peter Scott’s Angelus Magazine Q & A, ¶6, “What's Wrong With The Latin Masses Approved By The Bishop?”

2.      “The motu proprio Mass, like the indult Mass, is therefore not for traditional Catholics.”  See, Fr. Peter Scott Q & A “Can the faithful assist at the traditional Masses celebrated in virtue of the Motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI of July 7, 2007?”

It is true that these two Angelus articles are by Fr. Peter Scott, who continues to hold that traditional Catholics should never attend the motu Mass.  However, the point here is that the SSPX used to publish that sort of thing before, but would not do so now. There are many reasons why the indult/motu Mass is a compromise.  See this document: 20 reasons not to go to the Motu Proprio Indult Mass.

7.3. The SSPX has begun using the term “extraordinary form” to refer to the traditional Mass.

The SSPX has begun using the term “extraordinary form” to refer to the traditional Mass.  http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2658.  To control the language of an argument is half of winning the argument itself.  If there is an extraordinary form, then that implies an ordinary form which is also an option.  Thus, the SSPX use of this term implies acceptance of the new mass.  (Note:  We are not saying that the SSPX does officially accept the new mass.  Our point is that the SSPX has begun using the terminology of those destroying the Church.)

7.4. The SSPX leadership pretends that the 2007 Motu Proprio Really Freed the Mass and Answered the Prayers of the First SSPX Rosary Crusade. 

See this article which explains the problems with the Rosary Crusades.  The problem is certainly not the rosaries!  We need them! No, the problem is in the presumptuous assumption that the Motu Proprio is an answer to those crusades.

7.5. The SSPX continues to spew out weakness and subtle poison from its leaders and official organs.

There is a constant stream of new weakness and subtle poison, coming from the SSPX leaders and their organs of communication.   You can see the list here.

---

8. Bishop Fellay has completely changed his opinion on the prudence of making a deal with Modernist Rome

Here are some quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre against a practical agreement with unconverted Rome.  See both parts of the attached document called ABL – Words Not Pass Away.

8.1. The new Bishop Fellay contradicts the old Bishop Fellay many times on the subject of a deal with Rome.

Countless times, Bishop Fellay has said the opposite of what he has said in 2012 re entering a practical deal with Rome.  See this thorough article which documents his many, many contradictions on a deal with Rome, and on several other subjects.

8.2. The “Old” Bp. Fellay rejected a less-bad practical agreement with Rome, back when he was stronger.

In 2001, Bp. Fellay said: “[L]ast autumn, Rome approached us in an entirely uncharacteristic way, and made us offers  …  We could never have imagined that Rome would make us such an offer.  Undoubtedly you have heard about the idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of Saint Pius X would have been integrated into an apostolic administration.  …  An apostolic adminis­tration is even better than a personal prelature. First, a personal prelature is not necessarily governed by a bishop; an apostolic administration, which is a kind of diocese, usually is.  What is more, the scope of an apos­tolic administration's action is not limited to its own members.  The Opus Dei, which is the only personal prelature existing today, is not subject to the local bishop for what concerns its members, but it cannot con­template any external action without the local bishop's approval. With an apostolic administration, we would escape that limitation. We would be able to carry out our apostolate autonomously, without needing to obtain the authorization of the diocesan bishop, since we would have a real diocese the special characteris­tic of which is to extend to the whole world.”  http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2086].

But now, dear reader, consider the 2012 practical agreement which almost happened. It anticipated a personal prelature, not an apostolic administration, which Bp. Fellay previously rejected.  So, in 2001, when Bp. Fellay could see more clearly, he rejected an offer which is better than the one he sought in 2012.

8.3. Bp. Fellay is willing to place the SSPX’s work under the local modernist bishop!

Bishop Fellay and the general chapter called it a “desirable condition” which they are willing to negotiate away, that the SSPX houses be exempt from the local bishops. 

Bp. Fellay also stated: “It is still true — since it is Church law — that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary.”  6-8-12 DICI interview.

Regarding the inevitable clashes between the SSPX after a deal with Rome, and the local bishop, this is how Bp. Fellay brushed off those irreconcilable battles: “We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it.  Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?  ...  [I]f a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.”   6-8-12 DICI interview.

Here is how Bp. Fellay talked a short two years ago:  “If we are placed, for our apostolate, into the hands of the bishops, for the time being, it is not going to work. They are too many who look at us as enemies, and will treat us as enemies, and that would make our apostolate impossible. That’s not going to work”.  http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bp_fellay_el_paso_2010_interview/bp_fellay_el_paso_interview-1.htm

It is ridiculous to give the local ordinary (or the pope) control over the SSPX’s work, since the harm and poison they spew out is the very reason why the SSPX is necessary.  That would be like giving the Lutherans veto power over the activities of Catholic missionaries in a Lutheran country!

8.4. Bp. Fellay said 2012 is favorable for an agreement with Rome because now “the pope wants it”.

Bp. Fellay thinks that things are different and circumstances are favorable for an agreement with Rome, because “the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us.  You may ask: why this change?  We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us!  …  Yes, the pope is the one who wants it”.  6-8-12 DICI interview.

But nothing has changed since 2000/2001, except Bp. Fellay’s own thinking.  As Bp. Fellay said in 2001, Rome was even then “say­ing, ‘The Pope is in favor of this solution (the organizational solution that I described); you have nothing to fear. The Church needs you and asks you to help her in her combat against liberalism, modernism, and masonry.  You must not refuse to help.’  Oh! It is just a way of talking; we have always wondered if words have the same meaning for the Vatican as for us.  I think not.”  http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2086

Without even having a deal with Rome yet, the SSPX has self-censored so much already, that you can see what is coming.  From the SSPX leadership and its organs of communication, everything is fluff and a “stew” which includes subtle poison.  Just as the other dead compromise societies, the SSPX does not teach much anymore against the principle errors of our time.  The post-Vatican II popes are some of the worst popes in the history of the Catholic Church.  Yet, the SSPX leadership constantly praises them and holds them up for our admiration, just as the compromise societies do.

TradCatKnight Radio - Neo-SSPX (3 Parts)