The deal between the Society of St. Pius X and the Conciliar Church seems to be rapidly approaching. Yet again Psalm 129 turns its eye to the past for advice on how to understand the present.

In 2002, Bishop Fellay spoke out strongly against the “regularization” of the Diocese of Campos. In a conference given in Kansas City on March 5, 2002, the Bishop warned that Rome was putting the priests of Campos into an ecumenical “zoo.” His words:

What kind of Rome do we have when it can sign an agreement with Campos and in the same week can do something like Assisi II? They definitely will not say “We recognize Tradition” in any universal sense. But Campos is contented because Rome has recognized Tradition in Campos. But has it, really? If Rome truly recognized Tradition anywhere it wouldn’t be able to have an Assisi II, the very contrary of Tradition. It is impossible to see in the recognition of Campos a recognition of Tradition.

On the contrary, Assisi II was extended to include Tradition! Rome is saying: “We have a place for the Zoroastrians, for Jews, for Moslems, for animists, Buddhists, Hindus, …and we have a place for you!” That’s it. Rome has a place in the zoo for Tradition.

Bishop Fellay proceeded in his letter to make the point that Tradition cannot be treated as one among many, and that truth cannot be put alongside error:

But that’s not the position of the Society of St. Pius X. 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 mathematics, it’s clear. Any student who would say, “Two plus two equals five,” would fail, but ecumenism says, “It is whatever figure you like.” We say, “No, it is four, period.” Only one number is the true one. We say all the other religions are wrong, only one is true. This truth is exclusive. It is the only one by which we can be saved. All the others are just cheating the people. They cannot lead to God. And, I may say, just looking at Assisi II helps us to see the enormous problem in the Church today. The Society is not the problem; the problem is in Rome.

Marvelous.

Yet what does the dear Bishop say today? He says ‘we cannot turn down the current offer from the Pope. Francis means to do us good. This is not a trap!’

Unbelievable.

To recap: In the past the Society said: “We cannot enter a practical deal with Rome. This is like being put into an ecumenical zoo. And entering this zoo would be akin to placing truth on equal footing with error.” Now, in 2017, the Society says: “We must enter this zoo. We have a right to enter it. It is a matter of justice that we enter it! And we will enter it as we are!”

The simple fact is that Christ’s Church cannot have two religions. The Society of old used to believe that. It used to say that religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality have no right to exist. It used to declare to Modernist Rome: “You are not Catholic!” Now, in 2017, they are contented to have Modernist Rome say to them, just like Modernist Rome said to Campos in 2002, “We think you are Catholic!”

Truly remarkable.

Consider the following analogy.

A lion that is in a zoo is not all that different than it was when it was in the wild. He has the same stripes, the same mane. But, by the virtue of the fact that he is in a zoo he is, in a certain sense, different.

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 will have many animals. 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.

The Society of old was the lion. It knew by the fact that it represented Tradition it was, so to speak, the King of the Church. It knew that as a king it was unfit to be placed inside this ecumenical, pluralistic zoo that is the Conciliar Church. For inside the Conciliar Church co-existence is King, not Tradition.

Now, in 2017, Bishop Fellay no longer believes this. His actions suggest he wants Tradition to enter this Conciliar zoo where all are treated alike. He says, implicitly, that Tradition must be placed among the inferior animals (the progressives, the modernists, the liberals, etc.). He is saying it is a matter of justice that Tradition is placed on equal footing with falsehood. Is this not the complete opposite of what the Society of old used to say and believe? We think it is. For even if the Society is accepted by Rome “as they are” with a personal prelature, they are placing themselves into the confines of an ecumenical zoo!

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Into the zoo…

  1. He and the other two Bishops, +Tissier and +de Galarreta, knew it. This 2012 letter is their collective opposition to a practical accord http://www.therecusant.com/menz-letter-to-3-bishops It reflects the thinking of the Society of old. Williamson was the only one who continued to protest in any meaningful way so he was removed. Since then, the liberals at the top (Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Nely and +Fellay) have purged/silenced any priest who doesn’t fall in line. It is a dictatorial atmosphere, one that, oddly enough, repeats many of the same talking points that the Society condemned Campos for relying on back in 2003 https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/history-repeats-itself/ https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-sspx-condemns-the-sspx/
    https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/bishop-fellay-of-2004-vs-bishop-fellay-of-2017/

  2. An honest question- is there a possible difference in that Fellay (and others) believe that they will be able to resist whereas the Campos deal gave away the ability to resist? In other words, were there certain requirements (e.g. submission to a local ordinary, or an ordinary to be placed later) that may not be present in the current agreement? My own understanding is that the Campos group had to acknowledge the authority of Vatican II (whatever that means) . Another question- did the ownership of the chapels transfer to the diocese or to the Vatican?

    I ask this realizing that none of us know what the proposed new agreement entails. Just trying to figure out what differences there may be.

    1. Campos….the chapels remained under the “ownership” of the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney…which was originally composed of all those priests following Bishop Rifan into the Vatican fold – the priests that had originally been subject to Msgr. de Castro Mayer. Now, of course, as time has passed, newer priests are part of the Apostolic Administration. This was the situation at the time of my last visit to Campos a few years ago.

      Those few priests and faithful who preferred not to remain with the AA saw their chapels go over to those friendly with the modernists, much like those disaffected SSPXers could not take their chapels with them when they formed the “Resistance.”

      There has been some organized opposition to the whole Campos deal, largely centered in the nearby town of Varre Sai, but I don’t know how much it amounts to. And, of course, the Benedictine Monastery of Santa Cruz is there for those who prefer not to snuggle up to the Romans. It is headed by Dom Tomas de Aquino, who was recently consecrated as one of the “Resistance” bishops.

      There is a whole lot more to say about Campos, and it is certainly wise to keep that experience right in the front of our minds as these things transpire.

  3. You can read about some of the details about the Society deal here http://www.lastampa.it/2017/02/27/vaticaninsider/es/vaticano/fraternidad-san-po-x-a-pequeos-pasos-hacia-el-acuerdo-Ed1VFhTXQ1IfWDGHeFQ5kJ/pagina.html It looks like there is pretty substantive profession of faith they will be required to take. In my estimation, this is a far cry from recognizing the Society “as they are.” It also looks like no new Society chapels will be able to be opened unless that particular Diocese’s Bishop allows it. This was, I believe, confirmed in Bishop Schneider’s recent interview. If that is true, then that is not allowing the Society to be free to go save souls wherever they may be. That is not recognizing them “as they are.” That is Rome saying “we reserve the right to restrict your preaching to certain areas.” I will let you know more when I can.

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