SSPX Bp. Fellay:
“We are on the Eve of Important Events”
The endless saga of talks and negotiations between the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X and the Modernist Vatican II Church continues. In late June, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, gave an interview to the French publication Present, the text of which was published in English by the SSPX U.S. District. You can read the interview in full at this link:
This interview comes on the heels of Bp. Fellay’s revelation that Rome has appointed him canonical judge of SSPX priests, and several months after the state of Argentina — the home country of Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope” Francis — recognized the Society of St. Pius X as a Roman Catholic (i.e. Modernist-NovusOrdo-affiliated) entity for administative and juridical purposes (see “The State of Argentina Recognizes the Society of St. Pius X Administratively”), a fruit of the efforts of then-“Cardinal” Bergoglio.
We would like to take a few moments and comment on this latest interview given by the SSPX’s long-time Superior General (in office since 1994, his current term does not expire until 2018):
It was only about a year and a half ago, in October of 2013, that Bp. Fellay denounced Francis as a “genuine Modernist”. Although this is indeed an apt label for the Argentinian theological bulldozer, this accurate identification of Bergoglio with the most pernicious of all heresies has not kept Fellay from seeking full communion with him. In this most recent interview, the SSPX bishop rejoices at the circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that the apostate Bergoglio “does consider us Catholic”. Does this make any sense whatsoever? Why does Fellay want to be in good standing with a Modernist? Why does Fellay care if a genuine Modernist considers his society Catholic? And is it not rather troubling to be identified as Catholic by a pertinacious Modernist, who hates Catholicism?
Later in the interview, Fellay seems to lay the groundwork for his adherents to accept union with a Modernist “Holy See” by arguing that “we must avoid the caricature of wishing for a Church without wrinkles or stains here below: that is not what the good Lord promised us on this earth”. He goes on to explain that the Church’s mark of holiness means that “she is capable of sanctifying using the means given by Our Lord: the sacraments, the Faith, discipline, religious life, the life of prayer” — which is correct; however, he does not explain how, then, if the Church is holy and spotless in her teaching, her general discipline, and her sacraments, the SSPX has nevertheless for decades rejected and corrected the teachings of the Vatican II Church, has criticized and rejected the Novus Ordo sacramental rites, and has rejected and criticized some of the universal laws contained in the 1983 Novus Ordo Code of Canon Lawpromulgated by “Saint” John Paul II.
Is anybody home — or are we hoping no one will notice?
Speaking of inconsistencies and contradictions, we are still waiting for at least one SSPX cleric or layman to come forward and answer the challenge we issued some months ago to all who adhere to the SSPX’s position:
Judging from all recent events, and taking into consideration this new interview with Bp. Fellay, it seems clear that some sort of a canonical agreement or solution between the Vatican and the SSPX is imminent. Indeed, Fellay explicitly admits that his society is “on the eve of important events” — yet at the same time he declines to be specific, saying that the events cannot yet be “defined” and that prayer is needed.
Pardon me? Cannot yet be defined? If you don’t have a definition, that is, if you don’t know yet what event will take place, how do you know it’s important? Who told you it was important? Does anyone really need such concealed and mystifying “hey I got something great in the works but I can’t tell you yet what it is” stuff? What game are we playing here? “No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light” (Lk 11:33).
Perhaps Fellay’s deliberate vagueness is just another trial balloon to test the waters and see how many people will voice serious opposition to what he is quite obviously hinting at. The irony of the timing of these developments is staggering, however, for never has the Vatican been more obviously and farther removed from Catholicism than now under “Pope” Francis.
Within the SSPX, then, we find two strongly Catholic sentiments: the desire to submit to the legitimate Catholic authorities with docility, accepting their teaching and laws, and the desire to preserve orthodox doctrine and keep oneself unstained from any heresy, especially Modernism. Both of these are Catholic ideas, and that’s why both sides can cite evidence for their position and sound quite reasonable when they plead their case. What totally destroys these two Catholic foundational principles however — submission to the Holy See and firm rejection of heresy and disassociation from heretics — is the stubborn insistence of both sides to identify the Modernist apostates in Rome as the legitimate Catholic authorities. That is the problem; that is what throws their entire position completely out of whack.
Their desire to have it both ways — recognize the Modernist hierarchy as Catholic but refuse their Modernist teachings — is beautifully refuted in the following links:
- You Can’t Have It “Your Way”: Sedevacantist Response to Fr. Francois Chazal
- Is Francis a valid Pope? Why it Does Matter
- Video: Why the Novus Ordo Church cannot be the Catholic Church
- Resistance & Indefectibility: Where is the Church?
- Bp. Richard Williamson and Sedevacantism (Part 1)
- Pope Leo XIII on the Required Submission to the Roman Pontiff: Letter Est Sane Molestum
- Pope Leo XIII on the Required Submission to the Roman Pontiff: Letter Epistola Tua
We would furthermore like to draw your attention to the following teaching of Pope Pius IX, rarely found quoted anywhere:
What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?
…In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.
Pope Pius XII, too, had something to say that adherents of the Society of St. Pius X are not going to like:
…This teaching of Peter continues in his successors, and it will continue, unchanged, through all time, for such is the mission which Christ Himself has given to the Head of the Church.
To emphasize the universal and indefectible character of this teaching, the seat of the spiritual primacy was, after a providential preparation, fixed in the city of Rome….
The successors of Peter, mortal like other men, die like them, more or less quickly. But the primacy of Peter will last forever, thanks to the special assistance promised to him when Jesus charged him to confirm his brethren in the faith [Lk 22:32]. What matters the name, the face, the human origins of each Pope? It is always Peter who lives in him; it is Peter who guides and directs him; it is Peter above all who teaches and who spreads through the world the light of the truth which sets men free….
There is only one solution to the otherwise impossible scenario we are facing: Jorge Bergoglio and his five Modernist predecessors of infelicitous memory are not legitimate Popes of the Catholic Church. To say otherwise is to involve oneself in the most bizarre, most convoluted, and most absurd contradictions, errors, and heresies.
That John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis not be true Popes is possible; but that the Catholic Church should defect and fail in her essential mission entrusted to her by Christ, that is not possible.