The SSPX in 2012
by modestinus
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, recently delivered a 90 minute homily in Toronto which, among other things, reviewed the state of the Society’s relations with Rome during the past year (and a bit before). Most of what Fellay recounts is common knowledge among those who have been following the SSPX/Vatican talks, though there are a few eyebrow-raising anecdotes tossed in for good measure. Those who listened/watch Bishop Fellay’s address at the 2010 Angelus Press Conference will remember some of them. Others are, as far as I know, “hot off the press” and shed considerable light on the contradictory attitude of Rome and, more specifically, Pope Benedict XVI toward the Society. Moreover, Fellay’s remarks support what has been a longstanding suspicion among not just traditionalist, but many Catholics with a conservative bent, namely that there are many in seats of power within the Vatican who actively work to undermine the Pope’s authority, particularly when it comes to restoring the traditional liturgy and teachings of the Catholic Church.
While I obviously do not know the man personally, I will admit that I have a great deal of admiration for Bishop Fellay. The many interviews and sermons I have read/seen of his have always struck me as genuine, heartfelt, and measured. There is a lightness to his tone that is often missing among traditionalist Catholics though, to be fair, he does not shy away from calling a spade a spade. Some of his more recent interviews indicates — to the chagrin of some within his flock — that he is more aware of his times than others. He lacks, for instance, the hyper-Gallican rebelliousness of his fellow prelate, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and there is nothing in his talks of the half-paranoid reactionarianism of his former colleague Richard Williamson. Some traditionalists opine that Fellay has “gone soft” in recent years. But why? Because he is awake to the fact that the world has moved on since the 19th C. and that criticizing the current Church’s teaching on religious liberty takes on the appearance of absurdity when it is accompanied by hopeless longings for a reunion between throne and altar? Because he does not believe that the many troubles which beset the Catholic Church are due to a Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy? Because he realizes, like his predecessor Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, that Vatican II actually happened and that the best hope for the Church is not to deny the existence of the Council, but to interpret it in line with the 1900 years which preceded it? Because he will not call the Pope a heretic? If those are Fellay’s crimes, then I pray more traditionalists do everything in their power to embrace his deviancy.
H/T: Rorate Caeli (for the link)
Bishop Bernard Fellay, like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a doctrinal error on the baptism of desire being visible to us. Could the SSPX also be wrong about the Holy Mass ?
Its clear now that Archbishop Lefebvre like Cardinal Ottaviani and the other Prefects of the Congeregation for the Doctrine of the Faith assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit and known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was a simple mistake. They overlooked the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance not being known to us and so – these cases could not be considered exceptions.They are not exceptions to anything.
But they all overlooked this!
Now Bishop Fellay assumes that invincible ignorance and a good conscience mentioned in LG 16 is an exception to the traditional teaching on other religions. So for the SSPX, true to the tradition that comes from their founder, they assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is a doctrinal error of the SSPX and also the CDF. If the SSPX could be wrong on this issue could their understanding of the Novus Ordo Mass also be wrong ?
The criticism of the Novus Ordo Mass is based on the celebrant turning his back towards God, Latin not being used, the difference in the ordering of the words at the Consecration,the emphasis on the meal instead of the Sacrifice,the manner in which the priest hold the Eucharist.
The Holy Mass in the vernacular is still the Sacrifice of Jesus.
The SSPX bishops and priests are still allowing the dead man walking theory to wrongly influence their theology and understanding of Vatican Council II .Archbishop Lefebvre made the same mistake. This is heresy. It is a new doctrine.This is the heresy of rejecting extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an infallible teaching, they offer Mass.
It is heresy to say that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is heresy and irrationality to allege, on the SSPX websites, that we know non Catholics now dead, who are saved with the baptism of desire and who are now walking on earth- hence they are exceptions to every one needing to enter the Church.
This is the same error as the liberals and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Prefects since the 1940′s, an error which was also picked up by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
One SSPX priest quotes Archbishop Lefebvre using a terrible word for the Holy Mass. This is the Archbishop who was wrong in assuming that the dead are visible and are exceptions to a defined dogma. He could also be wrong about the Novus Ordo Mass.-Lionel Andrades
It is reassuring, sort of, that even clergy get the run-a-round from church beaurocrats.