Top Eleven Significant Events of 2013

Tradblogs is proud to present a review of 2013's top eleven events.

Without further ado, in no particular order:

Bishop Fellay's April 15^th Doctrinal Declaration

Originally submitted to Rome on April 15^th 2012, in March of 2013 the “AFD” was leaked to the public. Notably, the AFD accepted the Novus Ordo Missae as legitimately promulgated. The AFD has been well examined and analyzed by several priests (see here and here), Bishop Williamson, and there are also some helpful lay comments and insights to be found on the various trad forums. The AFD was instrumental in garnering and cultivating support for the SSPX Resistance.

 

Growing Resistance

While many of the major names (at least in the American Resistance) had already parted ways or been expelled from the NSSPX (+Williamson, Frs Pfeiffer, Hewko et al.) in 2012, the dissent has markedly grown in 2013.

-Declaration of Fr. Arizaga

-Declaration of Fr. Trauner

-Fr Girouard's Open Letter

-Letter of the thirty-seven Frenchpriests to +Fellay

-Commemoration of the 25^th Anniversary of the 1988 consecrations and subsequent declaration.

-The establishment of mass centers throughout the US

-Opening of Our Lady of Mt CarmelSeminary in Boston, KY

-Opening of San Jose Monastery in Columbia

-Many other instances of growth organized chronologically here.

Fr Pinaud's unjust trial and detainment

An event likely unknown or overlooked by many Catholics, Fr. Pinaud (one of the thirty-seven priests responsible for the open letter tto +Fellay) was subjected to a despicable spygame wherein Fr. Waillez (District Superior of Belgium) not only attempted to assume the identity of Fr. Pinaud by creating an email account in his name but also hacked into Fr. Pinaud's email to read his correspondences, for the purpose of confirming that Pinaud was a dissenter.

Fr Pinaud was subsequently detained for trial, which, under the supervision of + Fellay and Frs. Wuilloud, Petrucci and Quilton decided that “... we condemn Father PINAUD to a medicinal punishment of suspension of all acts by removing both the power of order and the power of jurisdiction (can. 2278 ss. CIC-17 and 1333 CIC-83). The lifting of this censure should be reserved according to law (can. 2245 CIC-17 and 1355 CIC-83).”

This is a clear and blatant usurpation of the Church's authority by a sacramental bishop and priests under his care, none of which enjoy the jurisdiction to hold an ecclesiastical trial, much less to actually inflict penalties. We must remark in shock and disdain at the arrogance and hubris on the part of Fellay & co to appeal to Canon Law (or, Conciliar Law) in their findings, as if they had any authority whatsoever to enforce or employ it in the way they presume to. This only contributes to the lamentable “parrelel churchism” found within the traditional world.  

For more information on this despicable affair please see:  here, here and here (primary sources provided within links).

Fellay's Waffling

It is apparent to us that Ratzinger's resignation has caused quite a bit of confusion for Bishop Fellay. As reported by Catholic Family News, +Fellay declared that “we have a genuine modernist (Francis),” at the Angelus Press Conference in October. While some took this as an opportunity to show us that “nothing has changed,” +Fellay quickly backtracked barely a month later, and in an interview with DICI clarified that Bergoglio isn't truly a modernist, just a modernist in his actions-- whatever that means. He took the opportunity to describe the primary role of the SSPX as celebrating the TLM, which is an inadvertent admission of how similar the SSPX has become to the FSSP in principle. For more information, see our analysis here. 

Ratzinger Resigns, Bergoglio Elected

Many centuries ago, popes infrequently resigned for the good of the Church -- whether they wanted to heal a schism or felt they were unqualified for the office from the start of their papacy.  Although hinted at as a consideration on and off during the latter days of the John Paul II era, never before had the man in the Vatican cited health concerns as reason enough to warrant rescension of the Petrine ministry.  But in a stunning announcement this past February, Joseph Ratzinger did just that, and officially resigned the office of the conciliar papacy at the month's conclusion.  Two weeks later, the conciliar cardinals elected Jorge Bergoglio as Ratzinger's replacement; as Cardinal Bergoglio he was seen posing with Protestant in communicatio in sacris acatholicis and was knowingly photographed lighting a menorah at a Jewish event, the man had barely stepped out to see the crowd in St. Peter's Square that dark March 13th night when Trads were variously worried (at the scandal he could and probably would cause Catholics stuck in Novus Ordo Land) and overjoyed (at how much more clearly he could prove their theological stances), and "brick by brick" Ratzingerian hermeneuticists were ready to turn off their televisions and curl into balls on the floor.

"There is no Catholic God" and Arian-esque statements

In October, Tradblogs covered the apparently Arian theological positions Francis made known in an interview published earlier that month.  See that post here.

The World Youth Day Beachball Bruhaha

Following another large Charismatic Movement event the Conciliar Church calls "World Youth Day" in Rio this past July -- well, where Tradblogs could describe for you what happened, a single picture more than suffices for the atrocity:

Sedebenediciplenism

Shortly before the public embrace by Fr. Paul Kramer of the opinion that Benedict XVI, and not Francis, is currently pope, that opinion (which was already held by a few a small number of semi-Trads) was set down as a new theory of papal identification formulated by one Alan Aversa:

sedebenediciplenism /sˌɛdɪbənɪdˈɪsɪplˌiːnɪzəm/ = the position where Benedict XVI is considered a true pope and Francis I is considered an anti-pope. Benedict XVI—initially not a true pope because of his leadership of the non-Catholic, schismatic Conciliar Church sect, although validly elected pope for the Catholic Church—became a true pope of the Catholic Church when he resigned his leadership role of the Conciliar Church on February 28, 2013. According to sedebenediciplenists, Benedict XVI did public penance for his ecumenical sins by promulgating Summorum Pontificum, un-"excommunicating" the SSPX bishops, disciplining LCWR and related groups, and supporting the SSPX; thus, he is no longer a heretic and can be and is a valid pope of the Catholic Church.

Since Mr. Aversa's initial formulation of the sedebenediciplenist position, the mutation of Fr. Kramer's variety has arisen which does not posit Johannine ff. sedevacantist as its starting point; rather, it recognizes the conciliar and postconciliar papal claimants as legitimate popes up through and including Benedict, merely stipulating that Benedict's resignation in February was invalid and as such he is still head of the (Conciliar) Church.  Referring to reasons as disparate as duress ("He was pressured to resign!  Death threats were made!") to faulty Latin in the resignation document itself ("Wrong tense here, declension there"), this brand of theory-supporter is further known as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar legitimists," whereas those who subscribe to Mr. Aversa's initial formulation are identified as "sedebenediciplenist conciliar illegitimists."  As a shorthand, however, we propose the following development in the terminology:  Aversan sedebene. (the original school of thought) and Kramerian sedebene. (the conciliar legitimist morphosis).

Francis & his condescension towards Trads (neo-pelagianism)

In rhetoric from early June which can only be described as baffling, Francis stated that a "Pelagian current" runs through the Church in "restorationist groups," i.e. Trad-leaning groups within the Conciliar Church.  This is how St. Alphonsus Liguori, in his History of Heresies, describes the heresy of Pelagianism:

First.--That Adam and Eve were created mortal, and that their sin only hurt themselves, and not their posterity.  Second.--Infants are now born in the same state that Adam was before his fall.  Third.--Children dying without baptism, do not indeed go to heaven, but they posses eternal life.  Such, St. Augustine testifies, were the errors of Pelagius.  The principal error of Pelagius and his followers was, concerning Grace and Free-Will, for he asserted, that man, by the natural force of his free-will, could fulfill all the Divine precepts, conquer all temptations and passions, and arrive at perfection without the assistance of grace. (page 109)

As such, we call this rhetoric coming from Francis baffling because we have not seen it in Trad-leaning or even actually Trad groups.  If anything, examing Francis and his likewise modernist retinue...

If Francis takes one breath to mischaracterize Trad-leaning groups, he takes another to mock them:  on the very same occasion, he said "[ . . . ] when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said:  'Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure:  3,525 rosaries.'  Why don't they say, 'we pray for you, we ask...', but this thing of counting..."  Naturally padded with the phrase "not to laugh at it, I took it with respect" -- of course.

Francis took an even larger swipe against the Trad-leaning members of his religion in his "apostolic exhortation" Evangelium Gaudium, 93-97, this time accusing Trads of "neopelagianism" in paragraphs under a section titled "No to spiritual worldliness."

Francis Blasphemes the Blessed Virgin

Twice already Francis has blasphemed against the Blessed Virgin Mary.  In the first instance, after likening Mary to the Church (good!) he went on to say that the Church has flaws (bad! embarrassingly bad! heretically bad!)

In the second instance, Francis harkened to John Paul II when he said of Mary at the Crucifixion that 

The Gospel tells us nothing: if she said a word or not ... She was quiet, but in her heart -  how much she said to the Lord!  'You told me then  - that's what we have read - that He will be great. You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And now I see Him there!' The Blessed Mother was human! And perhaps she would have  wanted  to say, 'lies! I have been cheated!'. John Paul II said this when he spoke of the Mother of God at one point. But she was  overshadowed with the silence of the mystery that she did not understand, and with this silence, she has accepted that this mystery can grow and flourish in the hope.

Should the reader follow the provided link, he will see that for all the other heretical things John Paul II said, oddly enough that sentiment was not one of them.

Ecumenism of Blood

In mid-December, Francis coined a new term of his own:  "Ecumenism of Blood."  He discusses his theological novelty thus:

For me, ecumenism is a priority. Today, there's the ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians because they wear a cross or have a Bible, and before killing them they don't ask if they're Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholic or Orthodox. The blood is mixed. For those who kill, we're Christians. We're united in blood, even if among ourselves we still haven't succeeded in taking the necessary steps towards unity and perhaps the moment hasn't arrived. Unity is a grace that we have to ask for.
In Hamburg [Germany], I knew a pastor who was working on the beatification cause of a Catholic priest sent to the guillotine by the Nazis because he was teaching catechism to children. After him in the line-up of the condemned was a Lutheran pastor killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The pastor told me he'd gone to his bishop and said to him: 'I'll continue to pursue the cause, but both of them together, not just the Catholic.' That's the ecumenism of blood. It exists today too, all you have to do is read the papers.

What we should take away from this:  Francis believes a Lutheran pastor killed for teaching children a presumably Lutheran catechism is as meritorious as a Catholic priest murdered for teaching children a presumably Catholic catechism.

HONORABLE MENTIONS: +Williamson's planned acquisition of a priestly house, Fr Rioult's "The Impossible Reconciliation", Bergoglio earns "Person of the Year" from Time Magazine, the advancing "canonizations" of JPII and JXXIII,

A Few Thoughts on Francis' Recent Interview

Ember Wednesday in Advent

 From The Vatican Insider

While most of the world may concern itself more with the temporary canonization of Francis by Time and The Advocate, we would like to draw your attention to his recent interview conducted by Andrea Tornielli (author of "Pope Francis: Pope of a New World").

CHRISTMAS

[Christmas] speaks of tenderness and hope. When God meets us he tells us two things. The first thing he says is: have hope. God always opens doors, he never closes them. He is the father who opens doors for us. The second thing he says is: don’t be afraid of tenderness. When Christians forget about hope and tenderness they become a cold Church, that loses its sense of direction and is held back by ideologies and worldly attitudes, whereas God’s simplicity tells you: go forward, I am a Father who caresses you.

God certainly gives hope, yes; and charity is God's love, loving one's neighbor as God loves them, and for the sake of God.  Often this is done with "tenderness" if we are to think in terms of emulating Our Lord, and being meek and humble of heart.  However, Francis' priorities are obvious: he sees the Church as a social organization, and that the worst (or at least, one of the most undesirable) things it could become is "cold."  In the first place, the Church is the Spotless Bride of Christ, and She does not "become" anything other than what He has willed Her to be-- Francis identifies the nature of the Church according to the dispositions of Her members.  If this was true, the Church would not only be cold, She would be a murderer, an adulteress, a thief, an ingrate, etc.  But this is not true, because Her nature is not defined by Her members.

Additionally, when God "meets us" (a regrettably modernist and protestant expression), He does not always tell us to "go forward."  In fact, in many cases, God "meets us" as He met St Paul, or as He met St Peter fleeing Rome.  He will purify us and chastise us so that we see the evil in the direction we were headed prior to "meeting" Him.  He has already said " If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mat. XII). 

There is also the unsettling emanation of Arianism.  We touched on this in an earlier post.  In Francis' interview with La Repubblica he over-distinguished between the Father and the Son, stating "...there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being."  The contrarian tone of "...but God, the Father... is the light and the Creator.  This is my Being," is enough of an equivocation enough to warrant a double take.  In this recent interview, Francis says: 

 The Greek Fathers called [the Incarnation] syncatabasis, divine condescension that is: God coming down to be with us. It is one of God’s mysteries.  John Paul II said God became a child who was entirely dependent on the care of a father and mother. This is why Christmas gives us so much joy. We don’t feel alone any more; God has come down to be with us. Jesus became one of us and suffered the worst death for us, that of a criminal on the Cross.” 

For any practicing Catholic who has written an academic paper on a subject which is filled with "experts" who predicate all of their theories on a denial of religion, there is an elusive way in which we can write about such topics without drawing too much attention to the fact that we disagree with and disdain what we are supposed to believe according to secular professors.  This is a very simple method which simply requires a sentence to begin "Scientists/doctors/philosophers believe/say/theorize X."  It is a very "unbiased" and distanced way of telling someone what they want to hear without actually saying that you share the belief.  Francis cites what the Greeks call the incarnation, and what JPII said about the incarnation but all that he says is that "God came down to be with us.  Jesus became one of us..."  Again with the distinction.  God "coming down to us" could mean anything.  Jesus becoming one of us isn't necessarily the same thing.  Especially when the words are coming out of the mouth of a modernist!  Who knows?  Maybe it's a translation error, or maybe it's not and we're just nuts.  But the suspicious way in which Bergoglio continues to distinguish between God and Jesus continues...

The entire second page of the interview is filled with the obligatory shout-out to the poor.

ECUMENISM

Over the course of these first nine months, I have received visits from many Orthodox brothers: Bartholomew, Hilarion, the theologian Zizioulas, the Copt Tawadros... They have the apostolic succession; I received them as brother bishops. It is painful that we are not yet able to celebrate the Eucharist together, but there is friendship. I believe that the way forward is this: friendship, common work and prayer for unity. We blessed each other; one brother blesses the other, one brother is called Peter and the other Andrew, Mark, Thomas…

There isn't really much to comment on here.  The work is done for us.  An heretic receiving heretics... you know what they say about birds of a feather.  The heretics retain material apostolic succession, but it's clear that Francis means that they are formal successors (with both power of order and jurisdiction) by the way he refers to them as equals.  Notice how "the way forward" doesn't include conversion?  It will be interesting to see how God caresses them.

Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority (You don't say?). Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed... I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism.  After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.” This is what ecumenism of blood is. It still exists today. Those who kill Christians don’t ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptised in. We need to take these facts into consideration.

Well, this is just filthy.  Many commentators have already chimed in with comments on this passage, and we can only echo their not-so-surprised shock at the absolute scandal of this "ecumenism of blood." Does Bergoglio not realize that in the past, the Church would have done exactly what the Nazis did to those who spread heresy?  That's a rhetorical question, of course; he must know and has likely already "apologized" for it publicly, or plans to.  There are no greater crimes than those against the Faith, because such crimes are direct assaults on God.  The spreading of heresy was dealt with so severely because the death of the soul is infinitely worse than the death of the body.  Naturally, we can't expect someone so preoccupied with materialism and the corporal works to appreciate that-- in fact, it's apparent he abhors it.  

Then there is the idea that how others regard "Christians" must be "taken into consideration."  Again we have the faith in flux.  While the Church is defined by what Her members are feeling at the time, a Christian is defined by what his enemies think he is.  The entire quoted paragraph accurately reflects the wicked indifferentism of the modern world towards religion.



MISCELLANIOUS 

Questions posed by Tornielli in bold.

Some of the passages in the "Evangelii Gaudium" attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a "Marxist"?

"The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended."


Three guesses as to whether we actually believe he thinks Marxism is wrong (and the first two don't count), although we certainly didn't expect him to say that it is.  But Marxists are good people, so it probably doesn't matter.  They must be playing checkers with all the other atheists in Heaven.


In the Apostolic Exhortation you called for prudent and bold pastoral choices regarding the sacraments. What were you referring to?

When I speak of prudence I do not think of it in terms of an attitude that paralyses but as the virtue of a leader. Prudence is a virtue of government. So is boldness.  One must govern with boldness and prudence. I spoke about baptism and communion as spiritual food that helps one to go on; it is to be considered a remedy not a prize. Some immediately thought about  the sacraments for remarried divorcees, but I did not refer to any specific cases; I simply wanted to point out a principle. We must try to facilitate people’s faith, rather than control it. Last year in Argentina I condemned the attitude of some priests who did not baptise the children of unmarried mothers. This is a sick mentality.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep" (I Cor, XI).

St Paul teaches us not to profane the Holy Sacrament, and attributes the Corinthians doing so as a cause for their ills.  Of course, to a man like Bergoglio who believes that all Christians are united in blood, there is no true distinction between a non-Catholic "Christian" and a Catholic, or a person in sanctifying grace or one in mortal sin.  

And what about remarried divorcees?
 
"The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a sanction. It is important to remember this. But I didn’t talk about this in the Exhortation."

Certainly he wouldn't condemn the practice of withholding Holy Communion from public sinners.  I suppose we expected a bit of a more of an artful dodge, though. 


May I ask you if the Church will have women cardinals in the future?

"I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not 'clericalised.' Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism." 

It sprang from the perpetually-flapping hole under your nose, sir.  This is a remarkable statement.  In telling the conservatives what they want to hear (something along the lines of "no women cardinals") he simultaneously slaps them in the face by saying they suffer from clericalism, which is NO-speak for telling someone they need to get with the times and realize that clerics don't have anything John Q. Layman the accountant doesn't have, nor do they enjoy any special privileges or rights.  


Could you have imagined a year ago that you would be celebrating Christmas 2013 in St. Peter’s?

"Absolutely not." 

If only...



 

Serve the World, Receive Its Praises

Feast of St. Damasus I, Pope and Confessor

How to become Time Magazine's Man of the Year:

Step 1.  Finagle your way to the top of a religious organization.

Step 2.  Remind everyone of how humble you are whenever possible.

Step 3.  Throw your organization's traditions under the bus you say you ride around in.

Step 4.  Marginalize and insult anybody who doesn't like the "new way."

Step 5.  Totally misrepresent the very nature of your organization.

Step 6.  Accept the Man of the Year honor -- humbly, of course!

To read the dreck rationale for the choice, see here.

Kyrie Eleison!
Christe Eleison!
Kyrie Eleison!

Traditional Catholic Publishers

Feast of St. Nicholas, Bishop and Confessor

Benziger, Desclee, Dessain, Mame, Pustet -- such names belonged to the great Catholic publishers of the earlier half of the twentieth century.  Following the creation of the Conciliar Church in the 1960s and the propagation of its new perverse doctrines, the aforementioned publishing houses mostly failed or faded into shadows of their former selves.  But in response to the Conciliar revolution, Catholics especially in the English-speaking world endeavored to found new publishing houses.  The following is a short list of such publishers, their affiliation (if known), and notable titles they produce:

-The Aquinas Institute
Notable titles:  Summa Theologiae, Commentaries

-Baronius Press (Conciliar Church's "Conservative" Ratzingerians)
Notable titles:  1962 hand missal, 1961 Latin-English breviary, DRC bibles

-Loreto Publications
Notable titles:  Blessed Sacrament Prayerbook, Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide, DRC bibles

-Maximus Scriptorius Publications
Notable titles:  Smith's Latin-English Dictionary, pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims photo-reproduction

-Nova et Vetera (Conciliar Church's FSSP trap)
Notable titles:  1962 altar missal, 1961 Latin breviary, 1962 lectionary

-Preserving Christian Publications
Notable titles:  The Roman Ritual, St. Robert Bellarmine's Commentary on the Psalms

-Refuge of Sinners Publishing
Notable titles:  Parente's Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Tanquerey's The Spiritual Life

-Romanitas Press
Notable titles:  Candles in the Roman Rite, The Liturgical Altar

 -Tradibooks (Sedevacantist)
Notable titles:  The Relations of the Church to Society, Commonitorium Against Heresies

[List to be updated as necessary.]

As Christmas fast approaches, please consider buying directly from the above Catholic publishers via their websites.  But especially consider donating to the Opera Omnia project of The Aquinas Institute, which aims to reprint in totally re-typeset Latin and English the complete works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor.  It very well may be the most important publishing event of the whole Traditional Catholic Publishing era.  Doubt it?  Easily verifiable, as single volumes start at $35.66 on Amazon.com.

From Menzingen: A New Interview with Bishop Fellay

Vigil of the Feast of St. Nicholas

 

Article published by DICI, our comments below.

N.B. Due to the length of the interview, it is not transcribed in this post.

Fellay begins the interview with the obligatory shout out to “Pope Emeritus” Ratzinger by mentioning the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the positive effect it had on the Franciscan Immaculata.  He slyly intimates that this same Motu Proprio caused them to pose certain questions about the council.  This is probably objectively true, since the Old Mass inspires such awe in any half aware person that they can't possibly fathom it being the product of the same Church that gave us the Novus Ordo (hint: it wasn't!).  Nevertheless, understanding that Ratzinger's SP was a political maneuver in the spirit of the “hermeneutic of continuity” to integrate the TLM into the VII religion, we know that it was certainly not intended to sow dissent against the Council, quite the contrary.

Fellay then pits Francis against his buddy Ratzinger when he claims that Francis' action against the Immaculata in restricting their use of the TLM is “directly contrary to the Motu Proprio, which spoke about a right [to celebrate the TLM].”  Is this how far the leader of the largest traditional group in the world has sunk?  Citing conciliar documents to enforce the TLM as a right?  Quo Primum, anyone?  The traditional faith is not promoted by conciliar documents, and these are dark times when the SG of the SSPX attempts to do so.

Throughout this interview, it can be very difficult to ascertain just exactly what Fellay's point is.  He seems to be thinking out loud.  For example, he begins this interview with a moderate lauding of Ratzinger, and shortly afterward says that “Obviously, the attitude [of Francis] is not the same [as the attitude of Benedict]. The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same!” This is true to a certain degree as it's apparent that Ratzinger “valued” (however arbitrarily, and if entirely for the wrong reasons) ceremony and tradition, whereas Francis is a true child of VII, and cannot seem to abide that which is not novel; nevertheless, we should not pretend as if these men are cut from different cloths.  They are not, and Fellay even acknowledges this later in the interview when he says 

“We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same. The basic lines remain the same. On the surface there are variations: one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme! The basic assertions: we find them, for example, about the Council [he goes on to mention the different ways the VII popes will explain the Council].” 

Which is it, Bishop Fellay?  Is Bergoglio is radical departure from Ratzinger, or are they both saying the same thing in different ways?

It should be apparent by now (hopefully it was already, dear reader!) that Fellay has fallen quite far from the tree as concerns the great Archbishop Lefebvre.  He says: “Perhaps I should have said [Francis is] a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.”  OK... what's the old saying? Bishop Fellay speaks louder than actions?  No, that's not it. Hmm... Oh!  Actions speak louder than words, yes.  Has the Church condemned heretics only when they had “coherent systems?  Whatever distinction Fellay hopes to make here is not clear at all, only that he is trying to back step once again from his comments several months ago where he called Francis a “genuine modernist.”

The most difficult thing to stomach is that Fellay is making it abundantly clear that he has no idea what a modernist is (or if he does, he refuses to recognize it)! This is the superior general of the world's largest traditional priestly society, named after the hammer of modernists, and he couldn't pick one out if one whispered in his ear.  For, preceding this weak retraction of the only worthy thing he's publicly said in the last year, he admits:

“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins.  All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders!  But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."

*Ahem*

That is textbook modernism.

“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist (Pascendi, no 18).”

Time to smell the coffee, Bishop Fellay.  Your very description of Francis is tantamount to calling him a modernist!

He also makes two claims in particular which trouble us, as concern the teaching role and authority of the pope and the Church.  He speaks of the “muddling” of what is doctrine and what is the pope speaking as a private theologian.   Well, if this “muddling” contains error, we cannot take solace in either instance!  Just because a true pope could never promulgate or approve a harmful or erroneous law, discipline, liturgy, etc. for the Church does not mean that he can express all the heresy that he likes as a “private theologian” when he speaks publicly!   There is some confusion here, probably based on the idea of the pope as a “private theologian” and thinking that errors or heresies in such a capacity are therefore “private,” but this isn't true.  When Francis tells the world that there is no Catholic God, he is not “saved” from the effects of such an heresy simply because he's not making a law or commanding that others believe it.  Along the same lines, Fellay remarks “Faith and morals are the two points that the Church teaches and where infallibility can be invoked.”  To say such a thing would lead us to conclude that the Church, in Her magisterium, can teach error on faith or morals. The Church's magisterium does not “invoke” infallibility, it is infallible.   The Church is a benevolent mother and the Spotless Bride of Christ, and can therefore never feed Her children stones when they ask for bread. The idea that the Church “can” invoke infallibility on faith and morals as concerns the magisterium (is that what Fellay is referring to? Who knows) is preposterous, and eventually turns the deposit of faith into a cafeteria line of options.

The last part of the interview that concerns us regards Fellay's comments on the TLM and the purpose of the SSPX.  He says that the primary purpose of the SSPX is the Mass. He says “The Mass really is the pump that distributes throughout the Mystical Body the graces merited on the Cross.”  True enough, but it is the faith that informs the Mass! The undermining of the faith by the modernists in the seminaries in the first half of the twentieth century and at VII occurred before the widespread and universal use of the bastard liturgy.  The Mass proceeds from the faith, and the Mass perpetuates the faith.  It is entirely possible to have the Mass without the integral faith, as we see with the indult groups, where men are trained to perform the ceremonies (perhaps even quite beautifully) but with little to no concern as to whether they know the doctrines it expresses, or even whether or not they are properly ordained! The world lost the faith before it lost the mass.

All in all, there is nothing particularly new to us in this interview.  It may simply serve as a reminder that leopards do not change their spots.  Fellay's unwarranted attraction to Ratzinger is still apparent, and we can only imagine the "heartbreak" he's experiencing at now having the thin veil of traditionalism that surrounded the Novus Ordo papacy during Ratzinger's occupation ripped off, stomped on, and then danced on (and maybe had a dreidel spun on it's rags?). The New Church and its pimps are full of disdain and contempt for the Catholic religion. If Fellay were to emulate them in something, instead of it being their double speak and confusing manner, have him direct that same attitude towards their unwelcome and hostile innovations. God help us.