Tag: Bishop Bernard Fellay

Brexit – Spexit?

Brexit – Spexit? posted in Eleison Comments on July 16, 2016

There is such a thing as the “Zeitgeist,” or spirit of the age. A proof might be the parallel that can be drawn between Britain’s June 23 vote to renounce the communistic embrace of the European Union, and the SSPX Superiors’ meeting from June 25 to 28, with Bishop Fellay’s Communiqué of June 29 declaring that the Society was now renouncing the embrace of neo-modernist Rome – “Spexit,” for short. For just as last week’s “Comments” suggested that Brexit was admirable but doubtfully efficacious, so one may fear that the June 29 St-Pius-Exit may have reassured many good Catholics that the Society is back on track, whereas within days official Rome and Bishop Fellay were saying that contacts continue . . .

The basis of the parallel is the apostasy characterising the Church’s Fifth Age, from 1517 to 2017 (or beyond), by which the peoples of the world have slowly but steadily turned their backs on God to replace him with Man. But their conscience is not at ease in the process. Therefore outwardly they pay homage to the good old order, but inwardly they pine for the freedom from God and for the materialistic benefits of the New World Order. Thus a good old instinct drove the British to vote for independence from Communism, but being nearly all atheistic materialists they are Communists without the name, and so hardly now know what to do with their Brexit. So one may fear that there is more to “Spexit” than meets the eye.

For instance, the excellent Hispanic website “Non Possumus” pointed out that when the Communiqué of June 29 looks forward to a Pope “who favours concretely the return to Holy Tradition” (2+2=4 or 5 ), that is not the same thing as a Pope “who has returned to Tradition” (2+2=4, and exclusively 4). Nor is it reassuring that on July 2 Bishop Fellay called for a fifth Rosary Crusade, foreseen on June 24 as a possibility by Fr Girouard in Western Canada. Recalling how Bishop Fellay presented as two gifts of the Mother of God both in 2007 the dubious liberation of the true rite of Mass by Summorum Pontificum and in 2009 the “lifting” of the non-existent “excommunications,” Fr Girouard fears that a unilateral recognition of the Society by official Rome could likewise be presented as a response of hers to this new Rosary Crusade. Here is how Fr Girouard imagines the recognition being presented by Bishop Fellay:—

“In the Crusade, we have asked for the protection of the Society. Thanks to the 12 million Rosaries, the BVM has obtained for us, from the Heart of Her Son, this special protection! Yes the Holy Father has signed this document where he recognizes us and promises to give us his personal protection, so that we will be able to continue “as we are.” This new gift from God and the BVM is truly a new means given us by Divine Providence to better continue our work for the extension of the Social Kingdom of Christ! It is also the reparation of a grave injustice! This is truly a sign that Rome has changed for the better! Our venerable founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, would have accepted this providential gift. Indeed, we can be sure that he has united his prayers to those of the BVM to obtain it from Our Lord, and that he is now rejoicing with her in Heaven! In thanksgiving for this wonderful gift of Providence, let us renew officially the consecration of the Society to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and let us have a Te Deum sung in all our chapels!”

In such a vision, adds Fr Girouard, anyone refusing the reunion of the Society with Rome will be made to seem to be resisting God and to be scorning his Mother.

Such fears are for the moment only imaginary. What is certain is that the “Spexit” of June 25 to 28 will in no way have shaken Bishop Fellay’s resolve to steer the Archbishop’s society into the arms of neo-modernist Rome. For him, that is the only way forward, as opposed to “insulting good Romans” and “stagnating” in a resistance that is out of date and no longer relevant to the evolving situation.

Kyrie eleison.

Inside Story – V

Inside Story – V posted in Eleison Comments on November 15, 2014

When Bishop Fellay’s long-laid plans to save the Society of St Pius X and the Church by reconciling them through a blending of Tradition with the Council were blown out of the water in January of 2009 by the worldwide publicity given to the totally “politically incorrect” views of a colleague in the SSPX, one might have sympathised with him, were such a blending not an impossible dream. But God’s own Catholic religion mixes with its Conciliar imitation, “fruit of the work of human hands,” like oil mixes with water, or truth with falsehood. Catholics with memories reaching back to 1988 could remember Archbishop Lefebvre branding any such effort for the SSPX as “Operation Suicide,” suicide firstly for the SSPX but also for anything the SSPX might have been able to do for the Universal Church.

Therefore clear-minded Catholics breathed a great sigh of relief when in that month Providence used the Church’s enemies with their wordwide media to torpedo the joint efforts of Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay to blend Council and Tradition. And such Catholics may have had dramatic but discreet confirmation from Providence that they were thinking correctly.

The “lifting” by Benedict XVI of the 1988 “excommunications” of the four SSPX bishops declared by Rome immediately upon their consecration, was directly attributed by Bishop Fellay, in public, to the intervention of Our Lady, thanks to the second SSPX Rosary Crusade at the end of 2008. Yet she had told him through her messenger early in the same year that if the Crusade was not this time dedicated to the Consecration of Russia, she would use the rosaries prayed for some other purpose. If these messages are true, Heaven cannot have taken too kindly to her having been manipulated for Church politics at the SSPX Jubilee celebration in Lourdes of October, 2008.

In any case, when on February 11, 2009, three weeks after the “lifting,” seminarians from the SSPX mother-house in Écône, Switzerland, were making a recreational excursion in the mountains nearby, three of them were caught in an avalanche, swept downhill and drowned in an icy mountain lake. And what is February 11? The Feast-day of Our Lady of Lourdes.

Mere coincidence? Or Heaven speaking through events, by one more correspondence between the inside story of these messages and the outside story of the first two Rosary Crusades? Readers will judge for themselves. If they are convinced that the Newsociety is on the right track when it seeks official approval from the Newchurch, they will have no difficulty in dismissing this series of messages supposedly from Heaven as one more “private revelation,” unworthy of serious consideration. On the other hand if in their judgment both Newsociety and Newchurch are on the wrong track, then it would make sense that, the world being on the brink of unimaginable disaster for having neglected the Consecration of Russia, Our Lady made one more attempt to obtain that Consecration through prayers launched by the SSPX.

Not that the SSPX was ever the salvation of the Church, but that if its prayers had been rightly directed, then as Our Lady gave her messenger to understand, she could have obtained from her Son the graces necessary to obtain that Consecration, and by it she could have saved both SSPX and Church and world. It is of no use now to “cry over spilt milk.” It is of use to practise the devotion of the First Saturdays, for Our Lady’s sake especially. She will not cease trying to save us.

Kyrie eleison.

Inside Story – IV

Inside Story – IV posted in Eleison Comments on November 8, 2014

And so we come to the climax of the inside story of the outside events of the Rosary Crusades of the Society of St Pius X six years ago. Would Bishop Fellay choose Heaven’s solution to the crisis of Church and World, trusting in Our Lady’s promise at Fatima of Russia’s conversion and a “period of peace” if only Russia is consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart, or would he choose the human solution of talks with Rome to fabricate a synthesis of Tradition (2+2=4) with the Council (2+2=4 or 5)? We can be certain that this is not how the Devil presented the choice to the Bishop, especially when in June 2008 the Romans came back into play.

In that month the Vatican became aware of the possible Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia through a letter which the same messenger of Our Lady had addressed to Pope Benedict XVI, invoking his blessing upon such an endeavor. The Vatican took the letter seriously. Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos ordered Bishop Fellay to return directly to Rome from Hawaii where His Excellency had gone to administer the sacrament of Confirmation. On June 4, Cardinal Castrillón with a group of several Roman prelates threatened Bishop Fellay that if he were to call for a Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia, Rome would close the door to any future discussions, and Rome would revive the dormant “excommunications” which had for the time being been rendered inoperative. That was also when the Vatican tried to impose on Bishop Fellay the “Vatican Ultimatum,” or five conditions necessary for any discussions.

So under this Roman pressure, Bishop Fellay had still not decided in the early autumn of 2008 to do as Our Lady asked, despite her repeated requests, and in fact on October 5, 2008, despite her direct warnings, he chose to apply the Second Rosary Crusade, set to run from November 1 until Christmas, to the intention of the “excommunications” of 1988 being lifted. On the same day Our Lord displayed His anger to the messenger of Our Lady by a vision of Him bringing down His hand to destroy the SSPX, while he referred to them as “Pharisees and hypocrites,” and said, “I can no longer put up with them.” But in the very moment of Our Lord’s hand falling, the messenger saw the Blessed Virgin Mary interceding on the Society’s behalf, pleading for mercy and saying “Remember the weakness of men.” The messenger then saw Our Lord’s anger immediately give way to His mercy.

But the Bishop’s mind was now made up. Three weeks later on October 26, at the Pontifical Mass climaxing the Society’s pilgrimage to Lourdes for the 150th Jubilee of Our Lady’s apparitions at Lourdes, he went ahead with announcing that the second Rosary Crusade would be dedicated to the lifting of the “excommunications” of 1988. On December 16 he wrote in private to the Pope, as requested by Benedict XVI, the letter asking the Pope for the lifting of the excommunications of 1988. On January 24, 2009, these were partially lifted by Rome. Bishop Fellay directly attributed this to the intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and he must have exulted in this seeming triumph of his patient diplomacy.

Alas, any triumph was short-lived, because within days the enemies of Catholic Tradition fired off in their worldwide media a torpedo perfectly designed to blow out of the water the threatening reunion of the Catholic Pope with Catholic Tradition. When the six-minute film clip from November 1 of an SSPX Bishop casting serious doubt on the “holocaust” and “gas chambers” of World War II was made public, Benedict XVI had to run for cover from the deadly accusation of consorting with “anti-semites.” The SSPX-Rome agreement was blocked, for at least a few years. (To be concluded.)

Kyrie eleison.

Inside Story – III

Inside Story – III posted in Eleison Comments on November 1, 2014

To continue the story of Our Lady’s messages to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) six years ago, some background is needed. Vatican II (1962–1965) wrenched the Catholic Church off course to reconcile it with the godless modern world. Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) founded the SSPX in 1970 to help Catholics to stay on course, and for 21 years he kept it on course. But as soon as he died, mistakenly convinced (or self-deluded, God knows) that they were still following him, his younger successors in fact dreamt of a reconciliation with Conciliar Rome.

In 2000 the Conciliar leaders sat up and took notice of the SSPX when it made a highly successful Jubilee pilgrimage to the Basilicas of Rome. Public (as opposed to private) contacts were re-opened between the SSPX and the Romans, who now set about swallowing that SSPX which they had proved unable to spit out. “Let us talk,” they said. The SSPX leaders appeared to be wary: “You must prove your good will by liberating the Tridentine Mass and lifting the excommunications imposed on the SSPX bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988.” Little then happened, at least in public, because on both sides the idea of reconciliation needed to mature, but in 2006 Bishop Fellay, SSPX ringleader of the reconciliation, was re-elected Superior General. As we have seen, this was soon after Our Lady began to intervene with the messages of which we are telling the story.

In 2006 her desire for a Rosary Crusade for Russia’s Consecration was adopted by Bishop Fellay, but re-directed by him towards the first pre-condition for talks with Rome, the liberation of the Mass. In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition, the lifting of the excommunications, whereas Our Lady, immediately after the Motu Proprio, began a series of messages in August of 2007 insistently requesting that any second Rosary Crusade be dedicated to the Consecration of Russia. But Bishop Fellay would not commit himself because he knew that this Consecration did not appeal to the Romans. They wanted talks, and so did he, to reconcile the irreconcilable, Vatican II and Catholic Tradition. Now we can continue with the story.

In early 2008 Our Lady, observing how the Bishop was still hesitating, told him quite firmly through the messenger that he was “not to use the (second) Crusade for the intention of lifting the excommunications,” and that if he did, “it would be fatal for the Society of St Pius X.” She added that she would not bless any such effort, but would instead use the rosaries prayed by the faithful for other purposes. And on March 22, Holy Saturday, she said most specifically, “Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.” And she repeated, “Remember, however well-intentioned the Holy Father may be.”

Let the story again be interrupted to point out how pertinent this message was for the defence of the Faith, and how perfectly this inside story corresponds to the outside facts. At the head of the last worldwide bastion of the true Faith, Bishop Fellay is being tempted to put it back under the Conciliar Romans, terrible enemies of that Faith. Because he does not understand the modern world, he believes that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and he trusts in the good intentions of its authorities (on the contrary Archbishop Lefebvre, after years of negotiations with the Roman authorities, described them – in private – as “a snake”). So if this inside story is true, and if Bishop Fellay makes the wrong decision, the SSPX is doomed. What happened? (To be continued.)

Kyrie eleison.

Inside Story – II

Inside Story – II posted in Eleison Comments on October 25, 2014

When the idea of a Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia was first put to Bishop Fellay in June of 2006, he did not yet know that the idea was in fact a directive from Our Lady – the messenger had been too shy to tell him. So he did not knowingly go against Heaven’s will when on returning to Switzerland after his meeting with the messenger, he decided to take up the idea of a Crusade, but to apply it primarily to the liberation of the Tridentine Mass, leaving Russia’s Consecration among the secondary intentions. So, as Our Lady told her messenger, while she would bless the first Crusade as a sign that the messages were really from her, it would not be to confirm that the liberation of the Mass was what she really wanted. The true answer to the crisis of Church and world lay in Russia’s Consecration, as would soon be made very clear to the Bishop.

So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.

However, already in August of 2006, Our Lady had directed her messenger to send to Bishop Fellay a letter in which he was this time fully informed of all the details of her original request, including that it came from Heaven. To this letter the Bishop had responded positively, saying that he would use the boost from the first Crusade to launch the second, and that it would be best if he himself took the matter in hand. But one year later, soon after the Motu Proprio until the end of 2007, Our Lady directed the messenger to write to him, again and again, to remind him of her wish for a second Crusade that would be properly dedicated to the Consecration of Russia.

Still Bishop Fellay hesitated to commit himself, so in early 2008 Our Lady came back even more insistently with the same request for the Crusade to be dedicated to the Consecration. The problem was that Bishop Fellay had long been working on his own plan to solve the Church crisis by a reconciliation between the Society of St Pius X and Rome, and Our Lady’s request did not fit in with that plan. Therefore the more progress he seemed to be making with the Romans towards reconciliation, the more difficult it was becoming for him to keep his promise of doing what she asked, because he knew that what she asked would upset the Romans. Indeed . . .

It was at about this time that the messenger, being unaware of why the Bishop was continuing to stall over Our Lady’s request, asked her if the reason was that the Bishop was not sure that the request was indeed coming from Our Lady. “No,” came the simple answer, as Our Lady lowered her head and shook it gently from side to side, “that is not why.” Our Lady did not say what the real reason was, she only said that it was not because the Bishop did not believe that it was herself making the request.

We approach the climax of the drama. Drama it was. In early 2008 the Blessed Virgin’s message concerning the Consecration of Russia was becoming urgent, as she knew that the Bishop was seriously thinking of making use of the second Crusade for his own purposes. This time he wanted to use it to achieve the second of the pre-conditions for discussions with Rome – the lifting of the so-called excommunications of the four SSPX bishops in 1988.

Kyrie eleison.

(*Famous line from a poem by the Scot, Robbie Burns (1759–1796), meaning “go often wrong.”)

Agreement Here

Agreement Here posted in Eleison Comments on July 12, 2014

On December 13 of last year, in St Martha’s House in Rome where the Pope is currently living, the Pope met briefly with Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St Pius X. The Society officially denies that the meeting had any significance, but an Italian commentator having some familiarity with how Rome operates, one Giacomo Devoto (G.D.), argues that the meeting was proof that a Rome-SSPX agreement has been reached. See http://​www.​unavox.​it/​ArtDiversi/​DIV812_​Devoto_​Notizia_​intrigante.​html. In brief:—

On the morning of the 13th Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants at the head of the SSPX met in the Vatican with the heads of the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the invitation of Monsignor Guido Pozzo, restored to the Commission by Pope Francis to deal with the problematic relations between Rome and the SSPX. An official publication of the SSPX, DICI , claims that this meeting was merely “informal,” but G.D. says that even being informal it cannot have taken place without there having been beforehand a series of discreet contacts to repair the public breach of relations in June of 2012. Also, says G.D., such a meeting is the necessary preliminary to any “formal” meeting.

In any case after that meeting Msgr. Pozzo, Msgr. di Noia and the three heads of the SSPX repaired to St Martha’s House where the Pope also happened to be lunching. When the Pope stood up after the meal to leave, Bishop Fellay went over to him, they exchanged a few words in public view and the Bishop kissed the Pope’s ring (or knelt down for his blessing, according to Rome’s Vatican Insider ). DICI again minimised the encounter as nothing more than a chance meeting with a spontaneous exchange of courtesies. On the contrary G.D. reasonably maintains that even such a “chance” encounter cannot have taken place without the Pope’s previous knowledge and approval.

Moreover, says G.D., in the art of diplomacy such a meeting is a finely calculated ice-breaker, of elastic interpretation, designed to mean as much or as little as one wants. On the one hand the courteous contact was there for all to see in a public place frequented by important Newchurch officials, and it could be seen as papal support of whatever had gone on at the morning’s meeting with the Commission. On the other hand both Rome and the SSPX could plausibly deny that the encounter had any real significance beyond an exchange of courtesies.

Thus when rumours began to circulate in the new year, for months the SSPX denied that there was any question of a Rome-SSPX agreement. Only on May 10 did DICI admit that there had been any contact at all between the Pope and Bishop Fellay, and then DICI so minimised the event that G.D. takes it as a sure sign that an agreement has been reached in private. (In modern politics, as the cynical saying goes, nothing can be taken as true until it is officially denied.)

In fact the main problem, for Pope Francis as for Bishop Fellay, is not how to come to an agreement which they both want, but how to get their left and right wings respectively to accept an agreement. However, the problem is being solved for them day by day as the Society, once glorious for its defence of the Faith, becomes the inglorious Newsociety. For indeed how many Newchurch bishops can still be fearing the Newsociety as a threat to their Newchurch? And how many SSPX priests are still convinced that any agreement with Rome would be a disaster, especially if they are promised that “they will need to change nothing”? Such an agreement will hardly need to be announced. In many minds and hearts it is already here.

Kyrie eleison.