This poor people accept the challenge of proving to those with eyes to see the CLEAR intention of Bishop Fellay in getting an "agreement" with MODERNIST Rome. To come out now calling pope Francis a "genuine modernist" could only have come about because Bishop Willimson has just announced the project of purchasing an eight bedroom house for priests in England, or because he (Bp. Fellay) has finally been told by the roman authorities to take a hike, that they are not interested on his 'negotiation' skills.
Back to the challenge...
We'll try to make it simple and concentrate only on three points to unmask the head of the pius union in Menzingen: The Council, the CatholicMass/New Mass and the World/Jews. Plus some miscellaneous to wrap it up those three.
1. In regards to II Vatican Council
a) "Vatican II is 95% acceptable". Bishop Fellay - Interview with “La Liberté” Magazine
b) “…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….]. Many people understand wrongly the Council”. CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23.
c) “As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, ‘I would like to hope that that is the case’ (which a faulty French translation transformed into: ‘I hope so.’)” [The parenthetical comment is in the DICI original.]
d) Religious liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!”
f) “We must set aside the secondary problems [doctrinal differences between the SSPX and Rome] and deal with the major problems [in the Church]." 6-8-2012 DICI interview
2. On the Catholic Mass and the bastard mass
Bishop Fellay has credited (blamed) Our Lady for "freeing the Traditional Mass" --fooling millions of people in the mockery of the first rosary crusade. Was the Mass really freed?
The motu proprio not only did not free the Mass but even emphasized that the traditional Mass was (at best) on par with the new mass or, actually, gave the new mass precedence. Listen to Pope Benedict:
"[T]here is the fear that the document [i.e the motu proprio itself ] detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions -- the liturgical reform -- is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II obviously is and continues to be the normal form -- the "forma ordinaria" -- of the eucharistic [sic] liturgy. The last version of the "Missale Romanum" prior to the council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the council, will now be able to be used as a "forma extraordinaria" of the liturgical celebration."
Source: Pope Benedict XVI’s 7-7-07 letter accompanying the motu proprio (bold emphasis added).
Bishop Fellay had the SSPX singing the Te Deum for that, believe or not.
To control the language of an argument is half of winning the argument itself. If there is an extraordinary form, then that implies an ordinary form which is also an option. Thus, the SSPX use of this term implies acceptance of the new mass.
That is confirmed by the official Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay/neo-SSPX:
#7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does, according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals, legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
3. On the Jews
In a 2012 interview he gave about the SSPX/Catholic position on the Jews, Bishop Fellay said:
It “does not reflect mainstream thinking in the SSPX to see ‘Jews as ‘enemies of the Gospel’, who seek the ‘corruption and ruin’ of Christians”.
"I don't think that in any talk or sermon, I ever talked about the Jewish question," he said. "It's not an issue for us."
"The topic (of the Jews) is very, very delicate, very delicate, and should be handled with the greatest care," the bishop added. "We don't want at all to provoke and to make unnecessary turmoil in the world."
Many have noticed that the SSPX has been purging its websites of strong Catholic teaching. To take a single example reported by Catholic News Service: “In 2009, … the society's U.S. website (www.sspx.org) removed articles arguing that the ‘Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide’, and that the ‘Jewish people, if it has not converted to Christianity, will, even if it does not wish to, seek to ruin Christianity.’” Quoted from: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm.
“The position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our Society. Anti-Semitism has no place in our ranks. We follow fully God's commandments on justice and charity and the constant teaching of the Church. Anti-Semitism has been condemned by the Church. So do we condemn it.” Rorate Coeli 2-2-09 (emphasis added).
- Miscellaneous
*Bishop Fellay accused the three bishops of lacking supernatural spirit
*Expelled one of them (The one who could spoil his sell out plan the most)
*Expelled also many priests and faithful
*Muzzled all those who are still with him
*Denied sacraments (Holy Communion, Holy Order, Absolution)
*The discovery of GREC
*The involvement with Maximilian Krah and Jewish money
*The hiring of a P.R Dutch Company to change how the old SSPX looks
*The 100+ articles of Archbishop Lefebvre which has vanished from the websites
*Many articles on the Jews have also disappeared, apparently for good.
For these reasons I think it is safe to say it blatantly that the pope is not the only genuine modernist!
On the other hand, [1]I am perfectly willing to believe that Bishop Fellay has had a genuine change of heart. All he would need to do would be to show his gratitude for the deal falling thorough by thanking those who made that failure possible, especially Bishop Williamson. And of course, as many others have already pointed out, he would need to publicly admit that he was completely and utterly wrong, invite back Bishop Williamson and all the other priests he expelled or otherwise drove out of the Society, and step down from his position as Superior General. Spending the rest of his life cloistered in a monastery doing penance would be a nice touch, but I would be willing to believe him sincere even without it. But I am forced to conclude that unless he acknowledges his fault and attempts the minimal reparation that common decency demands, his words are empty. It is obvious that if he wants to retain ANY credibility among even neotrads, he must say something along the lines of what he has said. If the situation weren't so painfully clear, I would force myself to give him the benefit of the doubt out of charity. But I see no doubt to give him the benefit of.
__________
[1]MiserereMeiDeus at Archbishop Lefebvre Forum
