Rorate Caeli

Pope Benedict is a "perfectly liberal Pope"

The Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, pronounced some interesting words at his homily at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet (Paris), last Sunday:

And now, we have a perfectly liberal Pope, my very dear brothers. As he goes to this country [the United States] which is founded upon Masonic principles, that is, of a revolution, of a rebellion against God. And, well, he expressed his admiration, his fascination before this country which has decided to grant liberty to all religions. He goes so far as to condemn the confessional State. And he is called traditional! And this is true, this is true: he is perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory. He has some good sides, the sides which we hail, for which we rejoice, such as what he has done for the Traditional liturgy.

What a mystery, my very dear brothers, what a mystery!

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a mystery, my very dear brothers, what a mystery!

Yes, just as Archbishop Lefebvre was a mystery! Although he was well intentioned his actions were, to say the least, contradictory many times. May he rest in peace!

Ramon Wals said...

Bishop Felay you are the "mystery"

Your arrogancy will not take you or the Society anywhere. Our Holy Father like it or not is "Peter" he is the "rock" and you must realize that Peter is NOT going to change, your are the one that has to change.

We Catholics will continue praying for the prompt return of the Society to the fold of the One and only True Church.

Anonymous said...

So much for SSPX reconciliation with Rome in that Bishop's lifetime.

Irulats said...

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery..."

Anonymous said...

Fr. Stephen, o.f.m. writes:

RE: The Views of Pope Benedict as seen by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, FSSPX

To see in the light of Christ, that is in the ligth of Truth and Charity the liberal/orthodox composite of Pope Bendict as Bishop Fellay calls our attention to, I recommend to my fellow readers three very important sources:
1. Bishop Fellay: "What are the Prospects for the Church with..." Pope Benedict--- see it printed in Christendom issue #1 posted at:

http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/Christendom_1bis.pdf

2. Aidan Nichols, O.P.: "The Thought of Benedict XVI" New Edition, 2007. publ.: Burns & Oates.

3. Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict:
"Jesus of Nazareth", 2007, publ. Doubleday. Pp Bendict wanted this first installment volume in print before his visit to the U.S.A.
Bishop Fellay's observation needs to be considered as well as the composite positions taken by the person of the theologian pope: While I was in my last 2 years in my theological preparations for the holy priesthood I found Ratzinger's 1969 "Introducion to Christianity" alarming but surprisingly contrasted by his 1992 observations. Theologian Nichols in his cited study above presents Ratzinger's diverse or composite stands taken at the different sessions of Vatican II.
In his own new book of the pope I could not miss these composite views, for instance, of the modern "historical-critical method" vis-a-vis Sacred Scripture; here are two quotations from his own 'Forword' to his book:
a. "The historical-critical method - let me repeat - is an indispensable tool, given the structure of Christian faith." But
b. "it does not exhaust the interpretative task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God." Therefore, one must "recognize the limits of the historical-critical method itself."
Let us pray and begin to return to doing penance that the ligth of Christ may shine not from under a bushel basket but from the lamp stand where Christ wishes IT to shine and be seen by all. May His Excellency Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father sit down and present to the faithful Christ with one clear and strong voice the way Archbishop demanded and Bishop Fellay faithfully alerts to its imperative. In Jesus and Mary,
Fr.Stephen, o.f.m.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay speaks the truth. Only the truth will make you free. If anyone reading this thinks that a pope who has never said the Traditional Mass (as pope) is traditional I ask how?. Many people believed John Paul II to be
traditional even after he had publicly kissed the Koran, among many spiritually repugnant actions he was responsible for. One act of charity or justice (SP)or even many, does not morph a liberal to
traditional.

Antonio LaPietra

Roger said...

sspx have lost the plot completely!

America is a wonderful country and to criticise it for such a STUPID reason is absolutely absurd. Good bye SSPX... to me you no longer exist, but are merely a dead/dying limb of the Church.

My friends and I don't need SSPX for the Latin Mass; we went to latin mass before Motu Proprio and will continue after.

Anonymous said...

Is Bishop Fellay pretending to be a “teacher of the Pope”? I think he may want to heed the words of Cardinal Castrillon—given in interview after the recent ordination seremony for the FSSP in Lincoln.

“We hope that they [SSPX Bishops] will come to full communion with the Church…but some people are going too fast…to the schism…and to the heresy…because, if they begin to be ‘teachers of the Pope’, this is not schism…this is heresy. And, if it is confirmed…people going with that kind of movement will be excommunicated too…because of the heresy…”

schoolman said...

Is Bishop Fellay pretending to be a “teacher of the Pope”? I think he may want to heed the words of Cardinal Castrillon—given in interview after the recent ordination seremony for the FSSP in Lincoln.

“We hope that they [SSPX Bishops] will come to full communion with the Church…but some people are going too fast…to the schism…and to the heresy…because, if they begin to be ‘teachers of the Pope’, this is not schism…this is heresy. And, if it is confirmed…people going with that kind of movement will be excommunicated too…because of the heresy…”

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter says,

Antonio,

The Holy Father offers the Gregorian Mass daily in private.

Pope Benedict XVI is the Supreme Pontiff and he was put in this position by the Holy Ghost.

Bishop Fellay is not the Supreme Pontiff and was consecrated a Bishop under schismatic circumstances.
I personally wish, O how I wish that things were different in the Church, and I pray for that every day, but I am an idiot layman, and a mere nobody.
Benedict, is Peter.

I think I will trust the Holy Ghost on this one.

Ut Prosim.

Anonymous said...

Going to this country!

This country that has always given and helped countries in need.
Fought for freedom for others.
Who's arms have always been open to the poor, helpless and needy.

Our Holy Father saw a prayerful people, a God loving people and also a people thirsting more for the love and mercy of God.

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter says: The SSPX cannot even agree amongst themselves about the "masonic Founding Fathers".

Here is an article by my uncle the Rev Father Christopher Hunter SSPX, who shows us that George Washington converted to the Catholic faith, and that our country was not founded on masonic principles but rather Catholic principles.

God bless,







Excerpt Catholics and the Republic
by Reverend Father Christopher Hunter

Washington and Freemasonry

To begin with, such chroniclers who assert this (and they usually assert it with great authority!) are proving their willingness to believe Masonic sources as if these same Masons were pillars of honesty and would never mislead us in matters that might be self-serving.

The Masons, of course, love to claim our first President as their own, often depicting him in full Masonic regalia, laying the foundation stone for certain public buildings in our Nation's capital. But if ever there was a classic example of a half-truth, this is it! I will let the reader determine if it is either fair or accurate to call our first President a Mason.

Washington took the first degree of Masonry in 1752, at the age of twenty, at Fredericksburg, Virginia. In the following year he took the second and third degrees at the same place. What the Masons don't bother to mention is, that after 1753, Washington never practiced Masonry. On September 25, 1798, Washington wrote that he had not set foot in a Masonic Lodge "more than once or twice in the last thirty years," or that he told his aide-de-camp that Masonry was "for the most part child's play," and that "it might be used for the worst of purposes."

Nor are we told that Washington died a Catholic. The facts concerning this have been well publicized and would seem to leave little room for doubt.

Four hours before Washington's death, Fr. Leonard Neale, S.J., was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary's Mission across the Piscatawney River, where he baptized President Washington.

There is little reason to doubt the report of Washington's deathbed conversion since his Negro slaves who testified to it, were not Catholic. In fact, it is reported that "weeping and wailing occurred in the quarters that Massa Washington had been snared by the Scarlet Woman of Rome…" In addition, it is reported that Washington made the Sign of the Cross before meals. He is also known to have attended High Mass on occasion in old St. Mary's Church in Philadelphia.

After his death, a picture of the Blessed Mother was found among his effects which, I am told, today hangs in his home, Mt. Vernon.

It was of George Washington that the Catholic Cecil Chesterton was speaking when he wrote: "It may be justly said of him, as it can be said of few of the great men who have molded the destinies of nations, that history can put its finger on no act of his and say, 'Here this man was preferring his own interest to his country's'."

Such are the facts that must be taken into account concerning America's political beginnings. Dr. Walsh was always fond of saying that: "Facts are truth, but facts are not truth unless you have all the facts." What I have put down here are those facts necessary to have a complete picture of the influences on the men who gave us the two documents upon which the United States was founded.

If Catholics believe it important to honor their Church by demonstrating its powerful influence upon the minds of men, then they should rejoice that in otherwise Protestant America, Catholic principles triumphed at the beginning!

The Angelus
February 1987

New Catholic said...

Just a note:

Bishop Fellay did not explicitly mention the United States, but, earlier in the homily, had made several references to France.

However, this specific paragraph can only be related to the Papal visit to the United States, since Fellay clearly states in it that "Lorsqu’il va dans ce pays qui est fondé sur les principes maçonniques..." ["As he goes to this country, which is founded upon Masonic principles..."] and then raises some important points which the Pope indeed did address in his homilies and speeches in America.

Since the Pope has not been to France as Pontiff yet, and since the references are clearly to some of the Pope's words in his very recent visit to America, it is certainly the case that the country mentioned by Fellay is the United States.

schoolman said...

What is "sad" here is that even President Bush seems to have shown more respect to the Holy Father than Bishop Fellay has given.

Anonymous said...

Since Bishop Fellay was not speaking to the Pope, he was not pretending to be a "teacher of the Pope"... whatever that's supposed to mean.

Rather innocuous comments by the Bishop, considering the vitriol they have brought out of the woodwork.

Anonymous said...

Father John Zuhlsdorf says:

The original French is posted on the website La Porte Latine of the SSPX.

How gracious of him to admit that Pope Benedict has good side to him.

I cannot believe that a person who desires unity with the Roman Pontiff would stand up in a pulpit and say this sort of thing about the reigning Pope.

Thinking it is one thing, but saying it in a sermon is another.

However, this statement does underscore what I have been saying all along. The real problem for the SSPX is not so much the liturgical issue or the excommunications, or even some juridical structure they could fit into. Those things can be solved with the a few signatures.

The real obstacle is the Church’s teaching about religious liberty.

Anonymous said...

The difference between the Church after Vatican II and the Society of St Pius X is the difference between what the Church was for nearly 2000 years and the Church after 1965 when the Coucil affected Her to be what She is now.
What this means concretely is the following: The SSPX holds and proclaims what the Church always dod. The distance and the change we see now between the SSPX and the Church reveals and points to the harsh reality: the Church has moved from Her path, from Her identity. The SSPX does not present anything new!
People need to realize that the faith and the life of the Church continues unchanged, undeterred in the SSPX. The Church needs to realize this and accept the responsibility for the difference, and not blame the SSPX. I once heard Bishop Fellay say this:
Once the Church leaders realize the errors of the post conciliar period, they will see that there is no problem with the SSPX. Truth does not compromise. The leaders of the Church closed their eyes and refused to fight the evil heresy of modernism since 1962. They dragged the Church into a critical zone, called state of emergency. The SSPX said this from day one and they should not be blamed for not changing their tune. Change and reform is now overdue in this new and danger zone. With all due respect and prayers for God's mercy and defence of the faith Christ gave us to uphold and preserve.
In Christ,
A friend of this blog site.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how to square Pope Benedict XVI's comments from his US tour with Pope Leo XIII's teachings in the encyclical Libertas. Leo condemns religious liberty. Benedict approves of it. Hence the problem.

(Libertas can be found at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html)

Neal

dcs said...

It is interesting that the SSPX is strongest in those countries that are the children of the late XVIIIth century revolutions - the U.S. and France.

schoolman said...

Neal, on the contrary, Leo XIII distinguishes between true liberty of conscience and false liberty of conscience (license). We need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

New Catholic said...

I ask all to be respectful toward the FSSPX and Bishop Fellay, please - and to avoid the words "schism" and "schismatic" at all costs.

Thank you.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

It is so good to hear that we have great bishops like Bishop Fellay who can still stand up and preach the Truth.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!

Truth is the anchor of the Church, my friends. The pope is the anchor inasmuch as he holds onto the Truth. Once he departs from the Truth, he risks the danger of getting lost at sea. Bishop Fellay and the SSPX hold onto the Truth and are calling back churchmen who have sailed far off before they get completely lost along with millions of the faithful.

Pope Benedict himself has on many occasions declared that his pontificate will continue the path of Vatican II and the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. This is the path of ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiallity - most definitely based on Freemasonic principles.

Let us pray for the conversion of the pope and bishops to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.

Let us also give thanks to Our Lord for the great churchmen he has given us in the likes of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishops de Castro Mayer, Fellay, Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais, and de Galaretta.

Deo gratias!!!

Anonymous said...

Schoolman,

Leo XIII condemns religious liberty in Libertas. I agree with your baby and the bathwater statement, and I'm sure that the problem is a subtle one; but during his recent trip the Pope was so unreserved in his praise of the American system of religious liberty that I can't see how it might be reconciled. Perhaps you can draw a distinction or two that would clarify things?

Respectfully,

Neal

dcs said...

I ask all to be respectful toward the FSSPX and Bishop Fellay, please - and to avoid the words "schism" and "schismatic" at all costs.

Can we ask all to be respectful toward the Pope as well, and not suggest that he needs to be converted "to the fullness of the Catholic Faith"?

Anyway, continuing along my line of thought above - what would the status of the SSPX be in a confessional State? Indeed, would the SSPX have been able to "occupy" a parish (St. Nicolas du Chardonnet) in a confessional State? Surely the SSPX must oppose the notion that the State should own what properly belongs to the Church. Yet they have been the beneficiaries of it.

Jordanes said...

Whether or not Pope Benedict can accurately be called a "liberal," he is obviously not a traditionalist (but then I doubt if any Pope can rightly be called a traditionalist). Again, while it is true that many of the American Founding Fathers were Freemasons, it's not quite true to claim that the U.S. was founded on Masonic principles. Msgr. Fellay seems to be carelessly interpreting the French and American Revolutions as instantiations of the same erroneous socio-political doctrines, not recognising the differences between the virulently anti-Christian, atheistic, and neo-pagan French Revolution and the Christian-influenced American Revolution (heretically-Christian influenced, of course). In fact, though it's questionable how aware any of the American Founding Fathers were of it, the U.S. was founded in part on various Catholic principles enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine. I fear Msgr. Fellay may be interpreting the American experience, for all its weaknesses and conflicts with Catholic social doctrine, through the lens of France's bloody and bitter suffering at the hands of hostile secularist forces.

Again, the Pope's recent statements during his U.S. visit were not an unhesitating endorsement of the American political experiment, and he never issued any condemnation of confessional states, which undoubtedly remain the ideal of human government.

João Emiliano said...

That's the Kali Age roots. . . But a confessional state? Ahh let me see. . . ahh well i'm desagree, but i believe that the state can be inspirated by the religious and christians ideas. That's a good idea, yeah. . .

Well, i need to go 'cause i type very much for a single pentecostal christian.........lllloooolllll

Bye-bye>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anonymous said...

Can someone fill me in here, what is a "confessional state" and why is it good or bad?

Nobody at Fr Z's seems to know.

New Catholic said...

A confessional State is one whose government officially adheres to a specific religious confession. Its concept is closely linked with that of an Established religion.

schoolman said...

It's also important to note that a confessional state and religious liberty (properly speaking) are not mutually exclusive.

Anonymous said...

We have to thank Pope Benedict for having torpedoed the reconciliation process with the SSPX after he changed the prayer for the conversion of Jews of the 1962 Missal.

A.B. said...

Is the reestablishment of Christendom (at least in part)possible? What is the nature of the Social Kingship of Christ? Does Dignitatis Humanae contradict this notion of Christ's Kingship? What tangible good would it serve a nation to grant religious freedom (toleration of non-Catholic religions is a given)when the population has a Catholic majority. Is there any room for Christ in the social framework of nations?

Dr. Herbert R. said...

Dear Bishop Fellay,

Its time to be reconciled with the Church and its time to abandon the hard line stand. The longer you stay in that situation the more you are going to hardened the schism. The younger generations who worship in your chapels will no longer have an idea of what it is to be a Catholic within the fold of the Church, the children will grow up with the schismatic mentality, always opposed to the Pope and critical. The Pope has done so much to reconcile you. and granting so many concessions. Please Please Please for the sake of Unity. We can work for the church humbly while even as within its fold.

dcs said...

It's also important to note that a confessional state and religious liberty (properly speaking) are not mutually exclusive.

That is true. Austria-Hungary is often held up as a model Catholic State yet Muslims enjoyed more religious freedom under the emperor than they did under the Turk. And Orthodox Christians also had a large degree of religious freedom - their bishops were even paid by the State.

Ma Tucker said...

Does it not make a mockery of democracy not to have a confessional state in a relatively religiously homogeneous society.

America was not homogeneous in respect of religion at its founding. Therefore allowance needed to be made for diverse faiths built on common principles. France however was mainly Catholic at the time of the revolt. American secularism seems to attempt to come to a compromise with the various religious groups. The French revolutionaries at the time of the revolt and the EU now are actively anti-Christian. Sure we would all like every State to be Catholic but failing that the American System a least is not actively anti Christ. There is a marked difference between the systems in my view.

I think Bishop Fellay does not distinguish initial conditions in his position and he errors in judgement as a result.

Anonymous said...

Whether we like it or not what Bishop Fellay said is true, Benedict praises the very secularism that is destroying us.

Ione said...

Benedict, while doing good for Tradition in the Church, is not a traditonalist. His views on tradition seem to be based more in terms of societal symbol than real conviction. Benedict is a Hegelian through the filter of existentialism.

Bishop Fellay is correct in my humble opinion, I thought the very same thing while listening to Benedict at the UN, and I do not assist at SSPX liturgies.

To those who argue for the supposed "Catholicity" of the US, it is a land founded on Masonic principles and to say otherwise is to decieve oneself.

The secular state ultimately turns on the religious. I don't think the late Archbishop Lefebvre would contradict anything said by his successor. Actually Fellay has the courage to express what many traditional Catholics lack the courage to say.

Traditionalists, of whatever stripe, but remember that we are indebted to the SSPX for their courage and sacrifice which sustained tradition through these continued turbulent post-conciliar years.

One can still be pro-Benedict and pro-Fellay, a line in the sand has not been drawn.

Bishops, both left and right, critique the non-dogmatic statements of the Pope quite often (except H.E. Robinson of course!!!), so why do we fain such shock that Fellay did?

Anonymous said...

Ramon Wals said: Our Holy Father like it or not is "Peter" he is the "rock" and you must realize that Peter is NOT going to change"...

Who are you trying to kid?

Anonymous said...

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=252036#252036

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v10.html

Michael Davies says there is no contradiction between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davies_%28Catholic_writer%29

http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/religious_liberty.asp

I do not have a problem with this teaching from the Vatican. Michael Davies stayed loyal to the Pope. I just hope Pope Benedict will bring back the Communion on the tongue, the altar rails, forbid altar girls, expand the TLM, bring back the SSPX...

John Mastai said...

This is reminding me of Our Lord's words about Judas and how it was a given that the "son of perdition" would betray the Savior no matter what and how it would have been better for him had he "never been born."

It would seem that nothing Christ could have said or done could have dissuaded Judas from handing Him over. Likewise, there is nothing that the Vicar of Christ can say or do that will dissuade or win over the extremities of the SSPX. I always understood that to mean Bishop Williamson, sadly, it would seem that Bishop Fellay is not much different.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Bishop Fellay, I must have missed where Jesus said, "unless you believe that a confessional Catholic state is the only possible form of government, you cannot be born from above."
Tradition involves the development of doctrine. But it appears that the SSPX's definition of Tradition is one that is frozen at a particular time in the Church's history--and according to their understanding, of course. They should worry a little less about making Jesus the King of Caesar and focus on the humble preaching of the Gospel.

Laetare said...

It is unthinkable of Bishop Fellay's latest outburst on his lack of charity towards our Holy Father Benedict XVI. The SSPX keeps walking further and further away from the posibility of any reconciliation with the Holy See to the point of almost reaching a state of "heresy."

The Bishop should come down from his high horse and hummble himself by following very closely Peter's steps. And should the Bishops be remainded that the Church cannot teach error for it is an impossibility for the Church to do so. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and GOD cannot allow error to the Bride of Christ.

Ramon Wals

Anonymous said...

Ours is an age of phenomena and images. Both Pope and Bishop Fellay need to check their respective statements for historical acccuracy. I have evidence to prove that recent popes fell into this trap of making judgements based on generally held but wrong impressions and not on sure and clear understanding of the position as held by critical "others".
I read carefully Peter Hebblethwaite's monumental and definitive biographies of both John XXIII and Paul VI. Clearly, Pope Paul himself did not know the mind of Pope John XIII. He was simply unaware, and did not check for accuracy his beliefs concerning Pope John xxiii. The present Holy Father appears to navigate also by popular images, impressions and thus admires the U.S. where religious communities, so diverse, exist side by side and its meting pot, where people learned the particularly American way of "live and let live" attitude. This surface image or phenomenon appeals to the Pope and so made his Rose Garden statement, I am sure drawn up still in the private Vatican apartment before he read it to us all. I wonder if the Holy Father knows the nitty gritty not-so-nice history of the product of the American development.
Bishop Fellay would have been also wiser to select better and more accurate and better known target for his criticism of the Pope, eeven while the Pope holds some liberal positions, such as his admitted view that one position hald by Popes of different times can very or contradict each other. This the SSPX rejects as betrayal. The Pope might also be soft or ignorant on matters Masonic. Can it be ignored that the Code of Canon Law of today refuses to include the Church's pre-vatican condemnation of Masonic membership. We know it was Ratzinger who, after complaint by the faithful, said that the Church did not change her view on the Masonic membership, even while not openly codifying it in the present Code of Canon Law. Should not Bishop Fellay not oppose this particular "new" attitude and the like? What about the present silence and blindness to the rampant and pervading heresy of modernism? Once theologian Ratzinger critical of its condemnation, then, in the course of the sessions of Vatican II, Ratzinger did express his concern over the "possible" inroads of thio heresy among the council fathers!!
Why should Bishop Fellay not question the ambiguities and contradictions that assulted the faith of millions and not hold the Popes and leaders responsible for not keepin shop nor govern as they are expected by the Lord? Every Catholic has the right by Canon Law to raise questions about matters that disturb them even in the popes' views, things that are apparently of concern to the faithful! Dont we find it odd that leaders of Church are lenient to proven heretics, such as our "Protestant Brethren,"
while harsh on friends like the SSPX, of whom Card. Castrillon said not that long ago, is no in schism, but in the bosom of the Church? After all, Bishop Fellay recognizes the Supreme Pontiff in his office!
Ours is an age when the war is spiritual as it was foretold by our ancient Catholic prophets.
We need to return to the love of our Faith and Christ! We need to pray and as the Gospel, Mary at Fatima and all the saints tell us
we need to live lives of penance, for prayer is insufficient while so many evil spirits are choking the Body of Christ. You and I are responsible for the present cricifixion of Christ in His Body.
Laudetur Jesus Christus!
A voice crying in the desert.

Anonymous said...

I find it not only inappropriate, but false, unjust and even blind to condemn SSPX and Bishop Fellay for his views and compare him to Judas Iscariot!!

You may not agree and you may fear Bishop Fellay's courage to stand up and question the Pope, but the law of the Church gives him this right, and I am certain he desires unity with the Church but not on the condition that he or SSPX accept the evil changes we all see since Vatican II. I respect views that weigh the truth or seeke the truth and defend truth but I dont and cannot stand by to hear blind condemnations of necessary and healthy criticism. we see in Holy Scripture that Peter himself made bad decision at one point. Paul was not branded as a traitor. So, please!!
Do you know that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to challenge the Holy Father for years and despite his strong convictions, because he respected the Petrine office and loved the Pope as his brother and superior.He prayed to God for a sure sign for his to save the faith, and he was given proof in his conversations with Card. Ratzinger, and discovered that faith the true faith of the people were clearly threatened and then and then only he saw he had no alternative but secure bishops in tradition for the future as he was getting weaker and approaching his death. Do not call these men of profound faith and love for Christ and His Church JUDASES. They will be recognized by the time of Our Lady's Triumoh ans heroes and saints of the Holy Catholic faith!
Pray for the Church, pray for the Holy Father, pray for the SSPX.
And have peace from Christ.
Learn to listen to the truth for truth and love are Christ Jesus.
I am your brother and not an enemy. The devil is our enemy!

P said...

How wicked!

Ione said...

"'render to Caesar what is Caesar's,' but who does Caesar render himself to?" -Archbishop Lefebvre's quote when arguing in support of the confessional state.

I am surprised that the posters on this site so quickly turn on the SSPX, Fellay is not saying anything the SSPX has not already said, he is just stating it within a particular framework.

I do wonder though, why when Rome reaches out an olive-branch it seems the SSPX says "thank you" out of one side of its mouth and "no thank you" out of the other side.

Anonymous said...

John Mastai:

Do not equate Bishop Fellay with Bishop Williamson, their intentions for the SSPX are manifoldly different. Fellay, when all is said and done, has the good of the Church in mind, whereas Williamson does not.

LeonG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LeonG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"I just hope Pope Benedict will bring back the Communion on the tongue, the altar rails... bring back the SSPX..."

Good liturgy is good. But at this point in time, I frankly don't want the SSPX back. They may be nice people, but they don't act like it. They may be Catholic, but they don't act like it. Not that it matters--they won't ever want to come back, anyway. And it's better for both of us that way.

Scissors

Anonymous said...

I think anon 00:57 summed it up quite well:

"Whether we like it or not what Bishop Fellay said is true, Benedict praises the very secularism that is destroying us."

I love the Holy Father but I have to believe that the tension is for the greater good. How could the Holy Father come over to this country and not condemn or at least lament the daily infractions upon the principle of subsidiarity? How could he come here and not see the tyranny of positive morality? If he did speak, then perhaps he spoke in private to the bishops and we will never know for the moment but as it stands right now, the religious liberties of Catholics in this representational republic/non-confessional state are being diminished in a piece-meal fashion. The hour is late, I believe the tension must be maintained for the greater good. Americans have a hard time with introspection, self-criticism and anybody who utters a word of criticism is either called unpatriotic, liberal, oblivious and the like. This is myopic and inane. I will close with Pope Leo XIII's own words to the bishops of America in 1895 from his encyclical Longinqua:

"But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced."

Let the tension continue

LeonG said...

It is impossible to judge what Bishop Fellay is saying from a mere quotation. This reminds one of the pre-SP period when everyone had their piece to remark before we could assess the entire document. I would like to read a script of the entire sermon and then evaluate it.

One factor is certain, however, the media insists the current pope is "traditional" but it cannot explain why he continues with what he himself has aptly criticized as the "fabricated" protestantised anthropocentric NO liturgy; he allows altar servettes even at his own Masses which provides the leaven of incitement to feminise the liturgy & promote the mistaken hope in some women they may perhaps become priests if they just keep up the pressure long enough; he gives Communion in the hand standing up & he has given it to protestants; he charms and flatters all the various representatives of every religion as though they are already our brothers and sisters in the faith while simultaneously by-passing the essential issues that separate us; he permits many essentially un-Catholic ecclesial movements within to continue propagating their own norms and values which are often at variance with Catholic ones & even to the point of inimical divisiveness in parishes; he stands next to Lutheran women pastors and bishops at ecumenical meetings when he insists this cannot happen in the modern catholic church; and, although this is not a definitive list, attempts the phenomenological leap of hyper-reality in insisting “two liturgical forms one rite”, when it is obvious the two "forms" concerned are founded on almost diametrically opposed principles and encourage quite contrasting behaviour and beliefs. This is the “new synthesis” we were promised based on "living tradition" and a presupposed hermeneutic of continuity. Continuity with what, we are entitled to ask? None of the above is "traditional" in any conceivably remote manner: that is not unless, as Professor Amerio states, we empty words of their proper meaning. Then, literally anything is possible.

We may be thankful for the SP but it has a sting in its tail – acceptance of one novel form & all the damage and devastation it has wrought on Christendom, is incumbent upon freely practicing the traditional extraordinary other. In the meantime, SSPX has certainly not lost the plot. Quite the contrary, they have perfectly understood the reality. What we have, ladies and gentlemen, is the very essence of liberalism at the helm. Unfortunately, it is the neo-conservatives who have lost the plot by failing to comprehend the nature of the post-conciliar epoch. It is one of pluralism, syncretism and overriding neomodernism. There are many different ecclesial communities with their own liturgical forms and doctrinal perspectives under one embracing roof; many false religions all being “nice” to each other also under one embracing parasol with a smilingly benevolent modernistic catholic church as overseer; a subversive “tolerance” for all who wish to express their own interpretation of proper liturgical behaviour at the “Mass” of their choice; a novel approach to primacy of conscience allowing one to become Catholic or leave Catholicism as one wishes without fear of sin; the freedom for “collegial” church hierarchs to accept or reject papal governance without disciplinary consequences and finally, although not exhaustively, the propagation of doctrinal and liturgical tendencies that are in direct contradiction to orthodox norms & values in the name of “living tradition”.

With endless futile and meaningless changes in The Rosary, the Stations of The Cross, the Liturgical Calendar, 141 canons removed to facilitate canonization, an increasing feminine presence on the sanctuary and comparatively easy-going rules for homosexuals in seminaries this can be none other than liberal governance by any definition, not only the Roman Catholic one. Like it or not ladies and gentlemen, it is liberalism.

Our Blessed Lady at Akita has diagnosed the situation perfectly – profound hierarchical subdivisions; popular compromises by Catholics and apostasy of The Faith. Prayer, penance and sacrifice, cried Our Blessed Lady at Fatima, and apostasy. Our Blessed Lady at La Salette had similar admonitions. Pope St Pius X warned us too – liberalism and the “synthesis of all heresies” – modernism.

Athanasius said...

The sad truth is that Bishop Fellay is not saying anything that Pope Pius XI did not say concerning the need for a confessional state. The US constitution is not a Catholic document.

That being said however, I think Bishop Fellay has misjudged the situation in as much as he is missing the point of the Pope's remarks. Look at France, more people go to the SSPX than the Novus Ordo. Both are minorities in the country that helped build Catholic Europe. The rest are atheists or Muslims. If you look all around Europe, the faith is dying. Then, if you come to America, the religion and the fight against liberal totalitarianism is strong and vigorous. Why has America resisted? Because many people still have traditional religious values. Europe? I've lived in Europe, and while the people are nice, the customs attractive, Christ was expelled from their long ago. He doesn't belong according the so many sections of the European Union charter. He is "homophobic".

There is more to the Pope's visit than liberalism, though I think the Pope slants slightly leftward.

stanislas wojtiech said...

Of course Benedict XVI is liberalistic. He accepts Dignitatis humanae not in the Ottaviani-interpretation but in the interpretation of Villot and Benelli who immediately pressed the Kingdom of Spain under General Franco to abolish Catholicism as the state religion (and elsewhere, e.g. in 1970 in Bp. Fellay's native Valais-Wallis canton of Switzerland).

Benedict XVI embraces the "Church of Christ is broader than the Roman Catholic Church" error (condemned again and again, explicitly by H.H. Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, par. 27). He declared to Archbishop Lefebvre that "the State must be religiously neutral" (in 1987, this is even in opposition to Dignitatis humanae par 1. which clearly states that societies have the obligation to follow the true religion), as a theologian Joseph Ratzinger declared that the Eastern schismatics do not have to accept the "maximimum demand" of Papal primacy and infalliblity, and he also declared limbo to be non-essential, original sin to be "rather unenlightened", and that Judaism is still the perpetuation of the Old Covenant and salvific (a heresy, clear enough) - although the latter seems ambiguous.

The Theologian Joseph Ratzinger never changed - according to his own words - when he became Cardinal and Pope. He was with Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx and the followers of the heretic Chenu O.P. from the beginnings of the Nouvelle Théologie (Neo-modernism, condemned by Humani generis in 1950 already and also by Mystici corporis in 1943 on ecclesiology).

It is a sad fact.

Can the Vatican II Church and its teachings and controversial reformed rites for sacraments (even episcopal consecration in the Paul VI new rite is thoroughly flawed and disputed as invalid outright by the Rore Sanctifica International Commission of Theologians) ever be reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ on the rock Saint Peter and his successors? What about the legitimacy of office (CIC 1917, canon 188, par. 4)?

There are problems. We cannot ignore them. I am glad that the leadership of the Society of St. Pius Xth does not ignore the problems.

This hugest crisis ever is about Dogma, Doctrine. Not about the holy Roman Liturgy alone. It is also about the most supreme shepherds and claimants to office in the Holy Roman Church, which is above all other churches.

Where has Benedict XVI ever distanced himself from John Paul II who on September 19, 1999 said that God's Spirit inspired with religious experiences all founders of "other" (false, non_catholic) religions (General Audience allocution)? Where was there condemnation of the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Conferences for Peace, where the relativism in religious matters and indifferentism and liberal promotion of pagan cults and pagan prayers was forwarded inside Catholic churches? Where was his outcry? Was not Assisi 1986 thé supreme heretical and Pan-Religious Unity-of-World-Religions event, cheered at by all Masonic leaders of Lodges and Grand Orients? Was it not the day which Cardinal Silvio Oddi (who later praised Lefebvre as a Saint) described "as the most confusing day in my entire life, more confusing than World War 2 and all controversies before and after". A Vicar of Christ on earth inciting pagans to pagan false worship? It is the total modernist concept of religion, the innate spark of divine, the immanent "openness to religious experience", which makes all religious persons and their religious concepts (rites, doctrines) equal and the same worth. Read Pascendi Dominic Gregis (1907) and Humani Generis (1950) thouroughly and see the events of today in their light.

Yes, total Liberalism (not per se Capitalism or Marxism) seems to rule in Rome, and even the conciliar pontiffs from John XXIII until including Benedict XVI.

Lord, save us, for we do not want to perish.

stanislaw wojtiech said...

I think Bishop Fellay (who is only 50 years old) may just survive this Crisis. The Conciliar Church (Paul VI, Benelli's term) will not last another 30 years, it is parasytical, it will implode and its adherents be faced with the choice. Benedict XVI will not live for 30 years more probably. Fellay just might.

We shall see a cataclysm. But the Bark of Saint Peter and the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church will come out as Immaculate as She is.

The Society of St. Pius X is perfectly Roman Catholic 100 %, something uncertain about the modern[istic] Vatican of today and many of the persons present there. The SSPX has some flaws, such as a somewhat Gallican concept of infalliblity (the universal and ordinary magisterium is infallible too, although not like the extraordinary magisterium in binding force).

But the SSPX is to be preferred over modernism and its hierarchy 1000%.

God bless the Church, God save His Church, God will save His Church.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us!

Anonymous said...

Hmm...you forgot to mention the Jansenism and neo-Platonism of the SSPX.

However, ultramontanism will be condemned for the heresy it is, and people like John Mastai (what an irony!) and Ramon wals * will be trying to avoid being burnt at the stake!

*called "Ramon the Fool" after Ramon Lull.

Anonymous said...

God bless Bishop Fellay. He speaks the truth. Our Pope's a liberal, water's wet.

Anonymous said...

I regret Bp. Fellay's remarks. He seems to ignore the fact that the faithful are in the minority everywhere and consequently it is counterproductive to press for something that is just not possible to have. The Pope understands this and his remark addresses the need to learn how to coexist with the forces of secularism and survive until times are more favorable for spreading the gospel.

The confessional state cannot be willed into being. The Austro-Hungarian confessional state was full of resentments and conflicts. I know I lived there.

I look on the idea of the confessional state as the emergence of the Kingdom of God in various cultures: a manifastation of the Will of God not the product of the vanity of men.

Crusader said...

Seems Americans, brainwashed over and over by their "patriotic" praises of democracy and their own (masonic) state do have a problem with HE bishop Felay.
I don't.
Although Benedict XVI truly IS "Peter" and "rock" it does not mean we cannot criticize some of his activities (which are undoubtedly liberal)!

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay

We understood the importance of Mons Levefre in last century for the church. Noordays the situation is very diferent.

As you have told in your sermon, the tolerance is very important to avoid something worse.

Please return to the 100% comuniem with rome.

Paul Haley said...

Tempest in a teapot as far as I am concerned. If Pope Benedict is considered a "liberal", does that not also coincide with his being a product of the Council? I suggest Bishop Fellay must constantly defend the SSPX position of not reconciling until doctrinal disputes are resolved. To think that he just wanted to "slam" the Pope verbally is IMO just nonsense. Remember, he was talking to his own. I think we ought to give both Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay some slack and recognize they have enormously difficult positions with which to contend.

Oliver said...

Looking at the future, Fellay is going to have a big responsibility castigating post-Ratzinger Rome. Imagine the horror stories in the Catholic world when liberalism and conciliarism take a firmer grip and feminism and homsexuality are incorporated in the new creed. The SSPX will seem the last great hope.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

How sure are you that under future Popes, liberalism and conciliarism will continue to grow and that feminism and homosexuality will be incorporated into the Creed? If Rome does that, if the Holy See does that, then it was never infallible in the first place, and the Catholic Church is not the true Church.

Back in the 1970's and 1980's, many were predicting that the Church will abolish the Mass and declare transubstantiation to be an error, ordain women as priests, etc. and these have not happened. And who could have imagined in 2005that the TLM will begin to flourish once more, in 2007 / 2008?

I am sorry to see how many commentators on these comboxes have lost faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you really believe that the Holy See is still the Holy See, that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope, that the Catholic Church is the true Church, then the Catholic Church will never officially promulgate these demonic errors as her own teaching.

Where is your faith?

Anonymous said...

"As he goes to this country [the United States] which is founded upon Masonic principles, that is, of a revolution, of a rebellion against God. And, well, he expressed his admiration, his fascination before this country."

Yes, subsequent to this statement, I found it highly disconcerting that His Holiness lapped up the dog and pony show displayed for him by the evil Bush administration (including the rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic), thus allowing his august presence to be used for propagandistic purposes.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Yes, subsequent to this statement, I found it highly disconcerting that His Holiness lapped up the dog and pony show displayed for him by the evil Bush administration (including the rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic), thus allowing his august presence to be used for propagandistic purposes."

Do you actually expect the Pope to have known about the Battle Hymn of the Republic?

Talk of being unreasonable. Just plain unreasonable.

Judd Bolger said...

These comments betray the ignorance of the Archbishop as he wallows in his myopic clutching of his idea of what tradition is. I don't deny that he his a good and holy man, but his vision has been clouded by his attachment to an idea. Instead he should attach himself to Peter, and hence to God, even though Peter and his flock is imperfect in many ways, it is still the spotless bride of Christ. That is the true mystery.

Douay Rheims said...

Amen to the comment by Scissors.

I too am a bit tired of the self-rightousness, and completely lack of charity on the part of the SSPX. Their websites contain almost as much anti-Catholic venom as those condemned by the Catholic League!

Of course, for the salvation of souls, I hope and pray for the conversion of INDIVIDUAL SSPX members and priests. But as an organization, I'd rather the Church not be associated with them at this point.

Certainly, at one time in the past, the SSPX was on the right side of history. (Heck, perhaps the same could be said about Luther, and many other Protestant "reformers" initially.) But no longer. They've been in the cold too long, and wandered too far from the barque of Peter.

+DR

Rick said...

Bishop Fellay is right, unfortunately.. I don´t know if the America( USA)was founded over masonic principles but how do it explain that piramid´s symbol with an up-eye in the one dollar bill?

That´s really mistery!

However, Bishop Fellay not is saying anything new, all "trads" know´s this. It need to be careful with overstates about Fellay´s person.

Let´s pray to SSPX, let´s pray to the Pope.

Regina Pacis, ora pro nobis.

Anonymous said...

If I may cut & paste from another (non-copyrighted) website:

Apparently, Fellay failed his course in Church history.

It was a traditional pope, Leo XIII (1878-1903), who in his Encyclical Letter Longinque oceani of January 6, 1985, highly praised the American Republic and its wise founders. Leo XIII wrote: "Thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance."

Pope Leo had a particularly high regard for the Father of the American Republic, referring to him as Washingtonius Magnus, the Great Washington. Washington himself acknowledged the crucial role played by Catholics in the founding of the American Republic. He lamented anti-Catholicism, contributed to the construction of a Catholic Church in Baltimore, and petitioned government support for Catholic missionaries among the Indians. Reports from members of his household indicate that he attended Catholic Mass on occasion and died a convert to the Catholic Faith on his deathbed.

source: http://www.traditio.com//comment/com0806.htm