Readers of this blog should know that it brings us no joy that this website exists. Indeed, we who contribute to Psalm 129 are nothing but obstinate sinners, deserving nothing but contempt. We take no pleasure in highlighting the contradictions and logical fallacies present in the remarks given by the current authorities of the Society of St. Pius X. We long for the day when the Society returns to its former self so we can focus on other issues. Alas, God has allowed this crisis in the Society to occur and so we must take action.

We have presented evidence on this blog over the past several months that irrefutably shows that the Society is saying things today that are directly opposed to what it has said in the past. Today, we continue that practice. Below are snippets from a conference given by Bishop Bernard Fellay in November of 2004. The Bishop’s remarks are contrary to what His Excellency says today regarding a deal with Rome. His words:

On the other hand, you have those who say, “Look, Rome is opening its arms, Rome is saying, ‘Come in; we’ll give you an apostolic administration; we’ll give you whatever you want,’ so why are you so stand-offish?” I’ll tell you why, which is one of the purposes of this conference. 

I’ll start with a crushing piece of recent news which illustrates so clearly what happens when you offer your finger…your hand…your arm to the present Rome. We have right in our faces a striking example of what happens to those who trust the present Rome. I speak of Campos.

When Campos was about to make the agreement with Rome, Bishop de Galarreta went to see Bishop Rangel and then I did, too. I told him, “Look at what they are doing to the Society of St. Peter.” He replied, “Well, what Rome offers us is so big that we cannot help but trust them. Of course, it’s a question of opinion; it’s a matter of prudence.” There was nothing more I could do. His thinking was that since Rome consented to grant them a bishop and their Tridentine life, Campos was being granted everything it wanted, so they wanted to sign an agreement.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Prudence is perhaps the most frequently used word by the Society today. And it is how they justify their own “regularization” efforts. They are following in the footsteps of Campos, word for word! What are Society faithful to do? Act like this 2004 conference does not exist? Indeed, Bishop Fellay just said in his recent interview with Fr. Lorans that “it is a question of prudence” that we do “not necessarily” need to “make the most noise” regarding errors coming out of Rome. Fr. Themann in 2013 also said it was “prudent” to pursue talks with Modernist Rome. We are seeing the same arguments being made all over again!

More from the conference:

Now, it is important to understand why Rome has suddenly come to the Society of Saint Pius X with a smile and friendly behavior. Not long ago, Rome was very much against us (and the majority in Rome still is). I think Rome’s friendliness towards us is because of its ecumenical mentality. It is certainly not because Rome is now saying to us, “Of course, you are right; let’s go.” No, that is not the way Rome thinks about us. The idea they have is another one. The idea is an ecumenical one. It is the idea of pluricity, pluriformity.

This is a correct diagnosis by His Excellency. He was prophetic in saying that “pluriformity” and the “ecumenical mentality” is why Rome was being friendly to the Society in 2004. But what do we hear from Bishop Fellay today? He says that Rome is friendly to the Society because it wants to extend a hand to those on the peripheries. That Rome wants to help those who are marginalized. This is unbelievable. Even Pope Francis himself has said that a healthy “pluriformity” is what motivates him. It is striking that Bishop Fellay knew Rome was friendly to the Society in the past due to its liberal, ecumenical orientation but cannot see that ecumenism is what motivates Rome’s friendliness now.

More:

To illustrate this ecclesiastical pluralism, I use the analogy of a zoo. Up until the time of the Second Vatican Council, there was only one species of member in the Catholic Church–genuine Catholics. If somebody did not want to be a Catholic, if someone wanted to teach something else than what the Church taught, he was excommunicated. However, if you read the theology books published since the Council, you can almost say and think anything you want and still be in good standing…

…But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the “fossils” which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never!

So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, “Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo.” The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision…

Yet what is the Personal Prelature offered to the Society but a cage for Traditon? It may well be a cage with thin bars instead of thick bars – thus allowing Tradition to be better seen and better heard by others – but it is nonetheless a restricted area. The SSPX is being put into a zoo to co-exist with modernists, to co-exist with error. It is ecumenism applied to Tradition

Lastly:

And I may say, had the Society entered into this same agreement, we would be more or less doing the same thing, and if not agreed on all the same points as Campos, at least there would be enormous division among us. Some would say to me, “We have to make an agreement. If you don’t do it we are going to lose something.” Others would say, “By all means, no.” There would be enormous division and a tremendous loss. Why is this? Because Rome is not at all convinced of the necessity of Tradition, of the necessity of coming back to Tradition to get out of this unbelievable crisis in which we have been since the Council, because they do not want to go to the roots of this crisis. The roots were clearly legalized, put into law, at the time of the Council, and these modern errors are what are killing the Church.

Oh how we wish this was still what Bishop Fellay believed. Oh how grieved we are at the loss of this perceptivity. Out of the depths we have cried to thee, O Lord. Deliver us from this affliction. Deliver us from the elect who are being deceived. Thank you for raising up Bishop Williamson, whom you gave eyes to see and ears to hear the crisis in the Archbishop’s Society and who created for us a lifeboat as the SSPX is swallowed up by the Conciliar Church.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Bishop Fellay of 2004 vs. Bishop Fellay of 2017

  1. But why do you assume the Prelature is a “cage” before knowing its conditions?

    Bishop Fellay said the condition is that the SSPX remain exactly as it is without any constraints or preconditions.

    Bishop Fellay’s position remains the same as in 2004 – he HASN’T changed. His condition remains the same: NO CAGE!

    Trust him – God knows what lies close ahead, and many other Catholics well soon need to have recourse to SSPX. The issue of jurisdiction poses a moral dilemma for many who would like to enter, but who hold back for this reason.

    Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision of a ship steered by a Bishop (and she mentioned she did not see a Pope) which soon came to dock and soon a stone foundation suddenly appeared around it and it became a refugee for many souls who entered. This sounds like a description of the SSPX.

  2. Bishop Fellay himself used the analogy of being put into a zoo, Marie. Of being put into a cage. I did not. If you read the other posts on this website, you will see +Fellay has changed. It is crystal clear for those who pray and think about it instead of simply “trust.”

    One Church cannot have two religions. Yet a prelature is exactly that – putting Tradition alongside those who are not Traditional. Read +Fellay’s own words. He said it was Rome extending ecumenism to the Society.

    If souls have a “moral dilemma” about going to the Society then God will provide for them in the FSSP, ICKSP, etc. They do not objectively have the faith of the Archbishop, and are not, in a sense, worthy of his work. You want to force the hand of God like those in the Book of Judith. Whoever these “moral dilemma” people are, all they have to do is pray about it and ask the Holy Spirit to let the scales fall from their eyes. I did. Grace is a gift from God.

    If there is a Bishop predicted by A. Emmerich, then it is the Archbishop. Recall that it was he who in 1989 said “we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years…would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic? That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.” Bishop Fellay thinks otherwise.

    1. No, what I am saying is that the only condition Bishop Fellay will accept now is that the Society NOT be put in a “cage”, NOT agree to be silent, NOT agree to change in any way.

      That’s what I am saying. Bishop Fellay has not changed his position. In 2004 a “cage” was the condition that was presented by Rome. That is no longer being stipulated. This is the only reason why Bishop Fellay would agree to it. He has NOT changed — his standard for the SSPX remains the SAME — No Cage, or No Agreement.

      In Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision, the Bishop and the ship join themselves to the Church and the Papacy. That was the point. Then the ship becomes surrounded by a foundation and becomes a place of refuge for many who hurry in.

      1. CORRECTION:

        In Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision, the Bishop and the ship are shown to be in danger, until they are brought to shore and on land again. Here is the full excerpt; it really seems to portray the SSPX:

        “”I saw a church sailing on the waters and in great danger of sinking, for it had no foundation; it rolled on the sea like a ship. With mighty efforts I had to help to restore it’s balance, and we sent many people into it, chiefly children,, stationing them around the beams and the planks.

        “In the three aisles of the church lay twelve men prostate and motionless in fervent prayer, and there were crowds of children at the entrance prostrate before an altar. I saw no Pope, but a Bishop prostrate before the High Altar.

        “In this vision I saw the church bombarded by other vessels, but we hung wet cloths before it and it received no damage. It was threatend on all sides; it seemed as if it’s enemies wanted to hinder it’s landing. When by the help of extra weight it was again righted, it sank a little in the sand. Then we laid down planks to the shore.

        “Instantly all sorts of bad ecclesiastics ran in with others, who had given no assistance in time of need, and began to mock the twelve men whom they saw in prayer and to box their ears; but the latter were silent and went on praying.

        “Then we brought great stones which we stuck all around the foundation which began to increase as if it were growing of itself. The stones came together, and it seemed as if a rock sprang up and all became solid. Crowds of people, among them some strangers, entered the door, and the church was again on land.”

      2. The issue in this post is not if the Society has changed its tone or if it is being silent (although I can prove it has changed its tone and is being silent). The issue here is something different.

        How about an analogy?

        A lion that is in a zoo is not all that different than it was when he was in the wild. But, by the virtue of the fact that he is in a zoo does mean he is, in a certain sense, different.

        For instance, a lion in a zoo is forced to live among hippos, monkeys, and penguins. That is because a zoo by its nature is diverse. If it is a good zoo it must have many animals. For that is what a zoo by its nature is. The lion is therefore one among many within the parameters of the zoo’s walls.

        But the lion thinks to himself: ”I am a lion. I am the king of the jungle. I cannot co-exist with these inferior animals within these walls. They are not the king of the jungle. I am! I do not belong in this zoo. This is shameful. These animals must recognize my kingship.”

        Alas, he cannot be recognized as king in the zoo. For a zoo is by its nature without a king. All are equal.

        You see, that is the issue here Marie

        In the past, the Society acted like it was the lion. A lion that possessed truth. The king of the Church, so to speak. A lion that knew it was unfit for truth to be placed inside this “ecumenical” “pluralistic” zoo that is the Conciliar Church.

        Indeed, in 2003 +Fellay said “Our position is that there is only one truth, the eternal truth. This truth is exclusive. Truth will not allow its contradiction to be made equal to it.”

        In essence, he was saying that Tradition cannot co-exist with error in the conciliar Church. He was saying that it is unfitting that Tradition be placed among the progressives (the hippos), the modernists (the monkeys), and the liberals (the penguins) in this pluralistic zoo. He was saying that Tradition only has the right to exist in the Church. It must be recognized as king by the other animals.

        Yet now, in 2017, he is saying that the Society will in fact enter this diverse structure that is the conciliar Church where ecumenism is king. He is saying that Tradition will be placed among the progressives, the modernists, the liberals, and those in error. He is saying it is fitting that the Society (the lion, the king of the jungle) is placed on equal footing as the other inferior animals. This is a complete reversal.

        Again, the Society today, like the lion, may not, as you noted, change its tone after it has entered this new structure, this zoo. It may roar all the more. Heck, this Prelature might even allow it to roam anywhere it wants in the zoo. But I say by the fact that it has now entered the Conciliar Church, this ecumenical “zoo,” it has in fact changed its principle, and that by doing so it has changed course not only from +Lefebvre but by +Fellay’s previous remarks.

  3. Bp Fellay is not the same. He speaks now of “religious liberty” and makes deals with corrupt Roman heretics. The SSPX took money from Rothchilds to build their new seminary. They are spiritually compromised and speak with guile. I can see no advantage in accepting union with a heretical church and pope. Only the Resistance Church now defends the Catholic Faith. God bless and defend Bishop Williamson.

  4. May I ask the author: do you attend a Society chapel or do you attend a diocesan or FSSP Latin Mass chapel? I have noted that most of the lamenting about this deal is coming from people who do not, and have not, been solid attendees of SSPX chapels. It makes little sense why those who do not, on principle, attend SSPX or affiliated chapels, would lament this deal.

    1. It makes little sense why those who do not, on principle, attend SSPX or affiliated chapels, think they can tell us Lefebvrists what we should do. They are false friends of the Society and some pseudo-Traditionalists. Psalm 129 does not share your assessment that most of the lamentation is coming from outside the Society. Rather, many inside the Society are opposed to a deal, but are afraid to speak up.

      1. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not making a personal accusation toward you. I do not have a particular judgment about whether this deal is good or bad. I’m reading many people on this, and I do not really know what to think on any solid level. I completely understand why one would view this as a bad move for the Society. I, too, have some nerves about it. I merely have not come down on the side that says that this is, absolutely, a bad deal.

        Perhaps I will ask the priest at the Society chapel that I attend what he thinks on the matter. I have not asked him. I do not know what his answer will be. I am, however, not “afraid” to ask him anything. Being in a position of ignorance regarding what these upper echelons are discussing, and having not asked my priest, perhaps I have not incurred the wrath and persecution that would make me afraid yet. I’ll get back to you if you would like me to on my findings.

  5. What has happened the leadership of the SSPX? Was it infiltrated by modernists as per the clerical Church at large? I had hoped at least the SSPX would stand firm against the evil being done by Francis and the institutions of the Holy See over the past four years. Is there no bishop who will ill speak out against the evil and falsehoods and lead souls towards salvation? Is there no bishop we can turn to for leadership, for spiritual truth and sustenance? Lord save us from these false prophets who collude with the temporal persecutors and seek to devour us . . .!

  6. Is the SSPX to remain outside of the church forever? If the reply is that Rome has left the church and not the SSPX, then why heed the pope at all? Why not a SSPX pope? The Catholic Church has fallen into the errors of the last days. We knew it would happen, and now it has. Is the remedy to keep the church splintered forever? No, the church must rejoin and errors must be fought from within. There hasn’t been a moment in church history when everything was perfect, and there never will be. Shall the SSPX remaining outside of the church proper until the church proper becomes worthy of the SSPX? That is an absurdity. It is a proud and evil notion. We should thank God for this new access and not sniffle around with scruples looking for everything that could go wrong.

    1. The Society is already inside the Catholic Church, Allan. It has all four marks of the Church. Please read our post “What ‘Conciliar’ Church?” on this matter, found here: https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/what-conciliar-church/. Also, read this post on the Archbishop’s thoughts on how he thought this crisis would be solved: https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/abp-lefebvre-responds-to-bp-schneider/ Lastly, we think that “regularization” is akin to Vatican III. Read here https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/regularization-vatican-iii/

    2. The important and decisive factor is to trust that a Prelate of such virtue and holiness of life is not only quite capable, but scrupulously dedicated to discerning the Will of God in such a momentous decision involving the well-being of over one million souls, 600 priests and several hundred religious.

      Doesn’t anyone who objects believe that a Bishop with such grave responsibilities receives extraordinary light from God about what HIS Will is and Will do it no matter what?

      Bishop Fellay knows how to discern God’s Will. Every good Catholic does; even more so will God give the good Bishop light in such a serious matter.

      Bishop Fellay knows and considers things that are way beyond our grasp and knowledge. Stop trying to take his place and second guess him.

      1. Marie, you have not understood what I said. With all due respect, you sound like a Novus Ordo Catholic speaking about John Paul the Great. No doubt Bishop Fellay has an enormous weight on his shoulders. I pray for him. Often. All I have done on this website is present quotations from him that contradict one another. You seem to think that doing this is inappropriate or a sort of assault on him personally. You seem to want to make this about the Bishop himself. I do not. I simply am dealing with words and principles. I would also note that there have been many, many priests, even a Bishop, that are no longer with the Society. Could it be that they were doing the will of God? Or is Bishop Fellay the only one who can understand God’s will? Indeed, we who contribute to this website know stories about the Bishop that do not reflect a Bishop filled with “virtue and holiness.” Simply put, it is not Catholic to turn our leaders into demi-gods. As Scripture says: “test all things.” I will pray for you to be released from this cultish way of thinking about the Superior General, whom you seem to think is infallible.

  7. Petrus Romanus: Actually, I have known the SSPX for over 40 years. I met Archbishop Lefebvre personally on more than one occasion and he Confirmed members of my family. I have also been on many SSPX retreats and attended their Masses. I am not by any stretch a “Novus Ordo” Catholic and I know the stakes in the Traditionalist movement very well.

    God will give Bishop Fellay extraordinary graces to know the right path and I am confident he will follow those.

    God bless.

    1. That is wonderful news. But, again, you have missed my point. Your seemingly child-like admiration for Bishop Fellay is similar to the way Novus Ordo Catholics view John Paul. To them, he is an oracle of God. To you, Bishop Fellay can do no wrong. And that is not Catholic. That is my point. I will pray for you, your family, and the Bishop.

      1. No, I do not have childlike admiration for Fellay. Have you been on SSPX’s Ignatian Retreats? The Rules for Discernment are very clear. Fellay knows them very well. He will use these rules and God will make His Will clear.

        I have often used these Rules for Discernment myself. They are clearly efficacious.

        Fellay will not act unless it is clear. That is another Rule for Discernment.

      1. That’s what I have been trying to say. He is not saying contradictory things. In 2004 Rome proposed conditions that he considered would involve compromises and would constrain and limit the scope of SSPX’s operations.

        More recently he has said very clearly those conditions are no longer being imposed (and the Ecclesia Dei Commission has concurred) and that SSPX will be allowed to operate and continue as they are. The only difference being that any form of censure from Rome will be lifted and SSPX will be given formal jurisdiction and a formal mission within the wider Church.

        Fellay has also said recently that there must be absolute guarantees in this regard, or there will be NO agreement.

        Fellay has NOT contradicted himself. Rome has simply lifted ANY and ALL requirements for preconditions. Trust him!! Fellay is not a fool. He is more concerned about the welfare of SSPX than you are, that is certain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s