Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Will Bishop Fellay follow Bishop Rifan?

Non-Possumus recently poked fun at The Fraternity of Saint John Baptist Vianney and their laughable ‘continuing the fight' statement, whilst having the craic with Pope Francis, enforcer of the continuing destruction of the Church.

It is hard to comprehend just how far they have fallen from the publication of their ‘62 reasons not to attend the Novus Ordo’ and ‘Catholic, Apostolic & Roman’.

When we look at Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, it is difficult, even in our most cynical mood, to imagine such a fall but… who would ever have thought that The Society of St John Baptist Vianney would have capitulated to this extent?

We have the numerous examples of the concelebration of the new mass (indeed with Pope Francis himself in 2013!) and the following comments on Vatican II from 2007

The Council must be understood and interpreted in the hermeneutic of continuity and not of a rupture with the past, as Pope Benedict XVI explained. This was the understanding of Pope John Paul II when he spoke of the “integral doctrine of the Council,” that is, “a doctrine understood in the light of Holy Tradition and referring to the constant Magisterium of the Church.”

The expression often used in traditionalist milieus of “interpreting the Council according to Tradition or using the criteria of Tradition” is not very precise and can be badly used. We should replace it with the expression employed by Pope John Paul II: “understood in the light of Holy Tradition and referring to the constant Magisterium of the Church.” …

In our declaration to the Holy See on January 18, 2002, the date of our canonical recognition and establishment of our Apostolic Administration, we wrote on this topic: “We recognize Vatican Council II as one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, accepting it in the light of Sacred Tradition.” … (
Apostolic Orientation Bishop Rifan p. 33)

Also not forgetting this attack by Bishop Rifan on his former comrades in the fight.

Many of those who fought for the liturgical and doctrinal tradition of the Church did not remain within these limits and, for this reason, ended by falling into schism and heresy. Many of those who consider the New Mass as invalid, heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, non-Catholic, sinful and therefore illegitimate, ended by taking the logic theological consequences of this position and applied them to the Pope and the whole Episcopate throughout the world.

They sustain that the Church officially promulgated an illegitimate and sinful worship, conserved for decades and offered every day to God. From this, they logically concluded that the Hierarchical Church as she exists today is no longer the Catholic Church because she officially fell into error. She only subsists in a small group, to which they obviously belong.

From this argument
ex absurdo, that is, from the absurdity of these ideas, one should conclude the opposite: the Church cannot – a priori – and actually did not – a posteriori – adopt an invalid, heretic, sacrilegious, heterodox, non-Catholic, sinful and hence illegitimate Mass. ( p15) (With thanks to TIA website)

When we witness such words it is difficult to envisage Bishop Fellay stooping so low. But, looking again, once relations are good with our former adversaries it gets so much harder to name names. Look at the cringe inducing Conflict Zone interview (if you are able!) where Bishop Fellay appears completely unable to defend 'former' positions held. 

Even to a lesser extent, his recent interview with Maike Hickson on Fatima, https://tinyurl.com/y8epcn6v where he appears to go out of his way not to offend. Plenty of pious platitudes, but every effort possible to avoid being misquoted as condemning modern Rome. Does he have any fight in him anymore?

As for Bishop Fellay condemning former comrades, à la Rifan, one has only to look at the laughable response from Menzingen to the consecration of Bishop Faure, where its argument is embarrassingly nullified by the SSPX Bishops' own consecration of Bishop Rifan's predecessor Licinio Rangel!

Let us pray, over the holy season of lent, for the scales to fall from the eyes of the SSPX superiors, and let them admit their recent folly and get back to defending the Faith in its entirety.




Thursday, 8 February 2018

Conciliar Church or Official Church?

In the latest Eleison Comments Bishop Williamson states the following

"One needs to be very careful with words, because words are the handle of our mind upon things, and things are the stuff of everyday life. Therefore upon words depends how we will lead our lives. At the flagship parish church of the Society of St Pius X in Paris, France, there is a Society priest taking due care of words. Fr Gabriel Billecocq wrote in last month’s issue (#333) of the parish’s monthly magazine Le Chardonnet an article entitled “Did you say ‘official Church’?.” In it he never once mentions Society Headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland, but he does complain of the “wish” coming from somewhere, presumably on high, that the words “Conciliar Church” should always be replaced by the words “official Church.” And he is right, because the words “Conciliar Church” are perfectly clear, whereas the words “official Church” are not clear, but ambiguous.

For on the one hand “Conciliar Church” signifies clearly that large part of today’s Church which is more or less poisoned with the errors of the Second Vatican Council. Those errors consist essentially in the re-centring upon man of the Church which should be centred on God. On the other hand “official Church” is an expression with two possible meanings. Either it can mean the Church officially instituted by Christ and officially brought to us down the ages by the succession of Popes, and to that “official Church” no Catholic can object, on the contrary. Or “official Church” can be taken to mean that mass of the Church’s officials devoted to Vatican II who for the last half-century have been using their official power in Rome to inflict upon Catholics the Conciliar errors, and to this “official Church” no Catholic can not object. Therefore “Conciliar Church” expresses something automatically bad, while “official Church” expresses something good or bad, depending upon which of its two meanings it is being given. Therefore to replace “Conciliar Church” by “official church” is to replace clarity by confusion, and it also stops Catholics from referring to the evil of Vatican II." (end quote)

Here is a recent article from the Dominicans of Avrille reminding us of the (conciliar) terms origins and the reason for its use.
 https://tinyurl.com/yd96wq3u

Wednesday, 7 February 2018

Sermon on the Family by Fr Fuchs

Good sermon highlighting how true Catholic family life teaches the acceptance of the cross.
https://tinyurl.com/y77hmymb