The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[pnewton]

Also, as the article points out, the portion quoted in the OP was not written by Bishop Fellay to Pope Francis, but was a quotation from a 1983 letter of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay was using to make a larger point.

They lost me with the LCWR comparison. I have never cared much for the “Little Johnny” justification. (as in, “but Johnny’s gets to stay up late”). Jesus addressed this to Peter in his last admonition in John 21.

Oh, and as far as the rest of their argument, come on. If you put a portion of a letter in a letter you are writing, it will carry weight of current opinion. They sure didn’t put it in for* contrast* or to refute their founder.

 

[Dee_S]

They owe their obedience to the Archbishop. That is how they think. And to “Eternal Rome”.
In their mind, they are behaving exactly as Christ would have them behave. They are saving the Church.
The Archbishop was the St. Athanasius of last century.

That is the reality of their thinking.

Anyone here who has spent any significant amount of time with them will know exactly what I am saying because they will recognize the thought process.

:thumbsup:what you say accurately represents, in summary, the reality of their thoughts and actions, but things are changing…

 

[Dee_S]

In my last post on this thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=783432&page=5 I commented on “The Resistance” to the SSPX leadership and their ‘alliance’ with Bishop Williamson. If anything, they are more whacky than ever (see my extracts), but not to be dismissed lightly, as they are gathering strength based on comparisons between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay and let me say, there is a world of difference between the ideology and public speech of the two.

Without any bias, if one reads anything that the AB said concerning Vatican II, it hits you in the face that here is someone who is in total and utter rebellion against it and the Church that it comes from. I won’t quote him here, as it’s probably not the right thread, but it is out there for anyone who wishes to see.

Quote from post: "The general drift in all their writings and reports is that the present leadership of the SSPX must be removed (for their betrayal) and replaced by themselves (faithful to the cause).

BW is currently travelling and doing Confirmations etc among this Resistance
It is reported that when he visited in Post Falls he said “I am sorry that Bp Fellay has done such deeds which require my presence here!”

 

[Brendan_64]

They owe their obedience to the Archbishop. That is how they think. And to “Eternal Rome”.
In their mind, they are behaving exactly as Christ would have them behave. They are saving the Church.
The Archbishop was the St. Athanasius of last century.

That is the reality of their thinking.

Anyone here who has spent any significant amount of time with them will know exactly what I am saying because they will recognize the thought process.

Catholics obedience to their bishop is not unconditional, it is conditional on that bishop being in full Communion with Rome. Bishops Fellay (or any other SSPX bishops) is clearly not in full Communion with Rome (just as Archbishop Lefebvre was not). Bishops within the Church hold their position through the favour of the Pope. Or does the SSPX consider itself to have its own magesterium?

As for eternal Rome, that is a modernist SSPX concept, which is NOT part of the Traditional teachings (or any teachings) of the Catholic Church, and has no scriptural basis. It is simply an invention so that the SSPX can justify their disobedience and deliberate lack of Communion with Rome.

If the SSPX accepts that Pope Francis is the Supreme Pontiff, successor of Peter and Head of the Catholic Church then they are bound in obedience to him. There is no ‘eternal Rome’ clause in the teachings of the Catholic Church that gives them (or any other Catholic) an ‘opt out’ on this. The fact that they chose to invent such a concept in order to allow themselves to opt out does not change this.

The fact that the SSPX has splintered several times in its short history, and continues to fracture and splinter is a testament to its schismatic nature and mindset, with certain individuals thinking that they know what’s best, and going off and forming their own organisations bringing as many as they can muster to come with them.

 

[pnewton]

The Archbishop was the St. Athanasius of last century.

That is the reality of their thinking.

More’s the pity. You are probably right. I never can get how they fail to grasp though the absolute single direction the Church is taken tin the last 50 years. Their situation is not at all analogous to St. Athanasius, I mean in key areas besides the fact that to such a claim just begs the question.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Catholics obedience to their bishop is not unconditional, it is conditional on that bishop being in full Communion with Rome. Bishops Fellay (or any other SSPX bishops) is clearly not in full Communion with Rome (just as Archbishop Lefebvre was not). Bishops within the Church hold their position through the favour of the Pope. Or does the SSPX consider itself to have its own magesterium?

As for eternal Rome, that is a modernist SSPX concept, which is NOT part of the Traditional teachings (or any teachings) of the Catholic Church, and has no scriptural basis. It is simply an invention so that the SSPX can justify their disobedience and deliberate lack of Communion with Rome.

If the SSPX accepts that Pope Francis is the Supreme Pontiff, successor of Peter and Head of the Catholic Church then they are bound in obedience to him. There is no ‘eternal Rome’ clause in the teachings of the Catholic Church that gives them (or any other Catholic) an ‘opt out’ on this. The fact that they chose to invent such a concept in order to allow themselves to opt out does not change this.

The fact that the SSPX has splintered several times in its short history, and continues to fracture and splinter is a testament to its schismatic nature and mindset, with certain individuals thinking that they know what’s best, and going off and forming their own organisations bringing as many as they can muster to come with them.

I see the splintering and internal disputes as a sign of their “Protestant” nature. If you are formed on dispute and disobedience you carry that into the organization and further dispute and disobedience is only natural. Just as Luther and Henry led others into disobedience, so too has AB Lefebrve.

 

[otjm]

In my last post on this thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=783432&page=5 I commented on “The Resistance” to the SSPX leadership and their ‘alliance’ with Bishop Williamson. If anything, they are more whacky than ever (see my extracts), but not to be dismissed lightly, as they are gathering strength based on comparisons between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay and let me say, there is a world of difference between the ideology and public speech of the two.

Without any bias, if one reads anything that the AB said concerning Vatican II, it hits you in the face that here is someone who is in total and utter rebellion against it and the Church that it comes from. I won’t quote him here, as it’s probably not the right thread, but it is out there for anyone who wishes to see.

Quote from post: "The general drift in all their writings and reports is that the present leadership of the SSPX must be removed (for their betrayal) and replaced by themselves (faithful to the cause).

BW is currently travelling and doing Confirmations etc among this Resistance
It is reported that when he visited in Post Falls he said “I am sorry that Bp Fellay has done such deeds which require my presence here!”

I have not seen anything to indicate the other two bishops are backing Bishop Fellay - if anything, they seem to be backing the status quo. Have I missed something?

 

[Lormar]

Catholics obedience to their bishop is not unconditional, it is conditional on that bishop being in full Communion with Rome. Bishops Fellay (or any other SSPX bishops) is clearly not in full Communion with Rome (just as Archbishop Lefebvre was not). Bishops within the Church hold their position through the favour of the Pope. Or does the SSPX consider itself to have its own magesterium?

As for eternal Rome, that is a modernist SSPX concept, which is NOT part of the Traditional teachings (or any teachings) of the Catholic Church, and has no scriptural basis. It is simply an invention so that the SSPX can justify their disobedience and deliberate lack of Communion with Rome.

If the SSPX accepts that Pope Francis is the Supreme Pontiff, successor of Peter and Head of the Catholic Church then they are bound in obedience to him. There is no ‘eternal Rome’ clause in the teachings of the Catholic Church that gives them (or any other Catholic) an ‘opt out’ on this. The fact that they chose to invent such a concept in order to allow themselves to opt out does not change this.

The fact that the SSPX has splintered several times in its short history, and continues to fracture and splinter is a testament to its schismatic nature and mindset, with certain individuals thinking that they know what’s best, and going off and forming their own organisations bringing as many as they can muster to come with them.

Brendan, don’t tell me, tell them. I’ve been saying what you have written for years.

 

[Dee_S]

I have not seen anything to indicate the other two bishops are backing Bishop Fellay - if anything, they seem to be backing the status quo. Have I missed something?

Wondering if I have too? I’ve not heard anything about their position at all Yes, nothing to indicate that the other two bishops are backing Bishop Fellay…

 

[Dee_S]

This news article, of Sept 2012 by Vatican Insider gives an idea of how Bishop T de M thinks, and I don’t think his thinking has changed, as he is noted for his accusations of heresy against Cardinal Ratzinger etc.**
During a conference, Lefebvrian bishop Tissier de Mallerais unveiled a letter written by Benedict XVI which says an agreement between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See is impossible**
Andrea Tornielli

Last 30 June, just days after the start of the Society of St. Pius X’s General Chapter, Benedict XVI wrote a letter to the Lefebvrian Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay.

The letter was revealed during a conference held on 16 September at the Priory of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Monfort in France, by Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the Fraternity’s four bishops, who is renowned for his disapproval of an agreement with Rome.

During the conference, the prelate said: “On 30 June 2012 – this is a secret but will be revealed to the public – the Pope himself wrote a letter to our Superior General, Mgr. Fellay: “I confirm to you that in order to be fully reintegrated into the Catholic Church, you must really accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar teachings.”
“This really is a sticking point – Tissier de Mallerais said – because we cannot accept or sign something like this. Clarifications can be made as the Council is so vast and it does have its positive points but this is not the essential element of the Council.”

The Lefebvrian bishop was very tough in some of the points he made during the conference:*** “Weapons cannot be surrendered right in the middle of a battle; we will not look for a truce while the war rages on, with the beatification of a fake beatification, that of Pope John Paul II. This was fake, it was a fake beatification. And with the requirement, continuously stressed by Benedict XVI, that we accept the Council and the reforms to the post-conciliar teachings.” ***

” “Evidently – the Lefebvrian bishop said – we cannot sign such an agreement. There isn’t and never will be agreement over this point.” Despite “modernist Rome’s” insistence, Tissier stressed: “Personally I will never sign anything like this that is for sure. I will never accept that the new Mass is legitimate or licit; I believe it lacks validity, as Mgr. Lefebvre used to say. I will never accept the idea that “the Council, if interpreted correctly, could be made to correspond with the Tradition [and that] an acceptable meaning could be found.”

After calling the doctrinal preamble which Cardinal William Levada delivered to Fellay, “false”, the Lefebvrian bishop said some “very mild and soft” decisions were taken at the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X, convened last July, so as to “present Rome with such great obstacles that it would be prevented from making any new proposals to us. But the Devil is evil and I think they will strike again, so I am discreetly preparing to defend us and the Fraternity will defend itself.”
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/concilio-18455/

 

[Boulder257]

After calling the doctrinal preamble which Cardinal William Levada delivered to Fellay, “false”, the Lefebvrian bishop said some “very mild and soft” decisions were taken at the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X, convened last July, so as to “present Rome with such great obstacles that it would be prevented from making any new proposals to us. But the Devil is evil and I think they will strike again, so I am discreetly preparing to defend us and the Fraternity will defend itself.”
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/concilio-18455/

Am I reading this right? Is he actually suggesting that the office is a tool of the devil? It doesn’t take much of a leap to infer other meanings to his statement either.

This is really taking a turn for the absolute worse. How incredibly dissapointing. I don’t understand how anyone can continue to support them.

 

[Lormar]

Am I reading this right? Is he actually suggesting that the office is a tool of the devil? It doesn’t take much of a leap to infer other meanings to his statement either.

This is really taking a turn for the absolute worse. How incredibly dissapointing. I don’t understand how anyone can continue to support them.

I do not think that is what he meant.

 

[Boulder257]

I do not think that is what he meant.

Okay, maybe I am munsiderstanding his point or reading too much into it. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[Lormar]

Okay, maybe I am munsiderstanding his point or reading too much into it. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Boulder, I don’t think Bishop Tissier would have meant that. He’s not like that. He’s a good man.

 

[Dee_S]

Boulder, I don’t think Bishop Tissier would have meant that. He’s not like that. He’s a good man.

Sorry to disappoint, but good man or not, he did mean what he said - and he is a ‘hard liner’. Not only has he accused Pope Benedict of heresy, he even published a booklet saying the same. I had forgotten quite how dangerous he is to the process of reconciliation, whereas BW has gone off on his own mission, this bishop is still right there to stop any further attempts.

Q. “What more, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: “Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.”

Q. When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, but he has never retracted his errors.

Bishop Tissier De Mallerais says that Benedict XVI published a book full of heresies.

Q.: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.

Q: In what sense, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins, did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ’s atonement of sins.

Q.: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.

Q.: This sounds like Luther.
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ**. It is worse than Luther, much worse**.

Q. My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No. But he has never retracted these statements.

Q.: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects “an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction…some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love” (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).

Q.: What other heresies, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…

So, according to Bishop Tissier De Mallerais, Benedict XVI has taught heresies worse than Luther and put doubts on the divinity of Christ; but he’s not a heretic or even “favoring heresy”!

Q.: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…

 

[Dee_S]

I do not think that is what he meant.

sorry again, it’s exactly what he meant! Think it’s worth noting that with him still in the SSPX, Bishop Fellay will never again be in the position to start another reconciliation attempt with Rome. Very, very sad story. Let’s wait on Pope Francis to see what he will do.

 

[Dee_S]

Am I reading this right? Is he actually suggesting that the office is a tool of the devil? It doesn’t take much of a leap to infer other meanings to his statement either.

This is really taking a turn for the absolute worse. How incredibly dissapointing. I don’t understand how anyone can continue to support them.

You are reading it right I think we had forgotten the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay, where they put immense pressure on him not to reconcile with Rome. To my mind, he ‘stuck his neck’ very far out in the hopes that their General Council in July 2012 would support this, but they did not. Thereafter he had to retract his position and consolidate their position once more, hence the conference he gave in Canada in Sept 2012 which refuted everything and where he called the new Mass “evil”.

It’s a sad story, seemingly without an end. We can only pray that Pope Francis can do something the other Pope’s have not been able to.

 

[Aramis]

Were there any ‘approved’ Latin Mass centres in the world, not connected to the SSPX? I know there were independent priests who continued to offer the TLM to small groups of laity.

I believe that in England both masses continued with no disruptions…

Several Dominican friars were using the Dominican Rite Latin Mass from about 79 on, tho not as advertised public masses. And they most certainly are not now, and never have been, SSPX affiliated.

 

[Boulder257]

Sorry to disappoint, but good man or not, he did mean what he said - and he is a ‘hard liner’. Not only has he accused Pope Benedict of heresy, he even published a booklet saying the same. I had forgotten quite how dangerous he is to the process of reconciliation, whereas BW has gone off on his own mission, this bishop is still right there to stop any further attempts.

That’s the way I read it and I thought the inference was pretty straightforwad…dissapointing to say the least.

 

[Dee_S]

Several Dominican friars were using the Dominican Rite Latin Mass from about 79 on, tho not as advertised public masses. And they most certainly are not now, and never have been, SSPX affiliated.

:thankyou:that is very interesting to know , thanks. I recall that we were trying to pin-point a time or organization besides the SSPX that were using the Tridentine Rite after 1969, as it seemed that it only came into wider or more general usage after Pope John Paul II established *Ecclesia Dei.*e.g. The Institute of Christ the King

The Institute, founded in 1990, is based in Gricigliano, Italy, where the international seminary is located. The Institute’s foundation was originally canonically erected in Gabon, Africa, where the Institute still maintains several missions, notably in the capital Libreville. Its canonical status was of diocesan right until October 7, 2008. On that date it was granted the status of pontifical right by decree of the Commission Ecclesia Dei. Deacons and priests are incardinated into the Institute, whose Superior General has the right to call to orders.