SSPX: Reading Francis Through Catholicism.


Bishop Fellay had something to say about the Bishop of Rome on the 12th; and boy, he did not mince words.

I have already reported that the SSPX made an appeal to Francis imploring him not to allow countless souls to perish. This time, the tones are far harsher.

Fellay is on record with saying that Francis is making an already disastrous situation “10,000 time worse”, and his metaphor with Francis and the parachute is, actually, funny in a very tragic way. He is obviously right in his analysis that Francis is willingly throwing bombs at the Church, possibly thinking the poor will be able to find better shelter among the ruins.

I am frankly surprised at the extreme severity of Fellay's words, as I had rather thought the approach of the first intervention would have been followed in the years to come; what I think has happened is that Fellay & Co. feel the situation is so extreme than nothing less than extreme words will do.

Mind, I do not agree with his calling the Novus Ordo “evil”, either (I follow him up to “bad”, though); but then again I am not a member of the Order, so this is par for the course. We have already discussed this ad abundantiam, though, so I will leave it at that.

Coming back to Bishop Fellay, please note the obvious relief at the failure to reconcile in 2012. Though I do not doubt the SSPX would never have agreed to a reconciliation putting them at the mercy of future Popes, there is no denying a reconciliation followed shortly thereafter by accusations of heresy moved to the Pope would not have been a very lasting one. I cannot avoid seeing in that a sign of Providence, leaving the SSPX free to defend orthodoxy without being encumbered by the desire not to rock the boat of a very fresh agreement. I also remember the one or other suggesting the SSPX leaders come crawling at the presence of the Pope and ask for a reconciliation whatever, before it gets worse. It seems fair to say these good men of God will not only not crawl anywhere, but will stand and be ready for battle at all times.

Someway, I get the impression they don't really read Francis through Benedict.



Posted on October 15, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, FSSPX, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 23 Comments.

  1. I notice than on Father Z’s blog which I accessed through yours, that the good Father begins his discussion of this with a “yawn”. One would think that by now, all of this is anything but sleepy dialogue. Time to wake up Father Z!

    • I am sure he means well.
      He is, actually, one of the very few of whom I think he truly has the best intentions.
      As for myself, I prefer to keep my eyes wide open.


  2. Mundabor my friend,

    Imagine how strong SSPX would BE if Bishop Lefebvre DID NOT consecrate Bishops. It is ironic that he kind of lost his nerve because he was afraid his order would perish with his death …. kind of sounds Modernistic? Why didn’t he trust the Holy Spirit?

    Orthodoxy and tradition without the Pope/Church is reactionary just like the “spirit of Vatican 2” is a reaction to modernity. Both are avoidance of the Cross.

    A Cross is a Cross.

    I now live in a country that has a Bishop who allows the Latin Mass. For many years the previous Bishop only allowed the Latin Mass in a school Chapel. I have learned a great deal from the patient prayer life of the Latin Mass community in my new home country. As I said previously we do not get to choose our Cross.

    God Bless you and your readers,

    • Sean, with all due respect, what you say does not even begin to make sense.

      If Archbishop Lefebvre had not consecrated the bishops, the SSPX would, with all probability, not exist, or perhaps (just perhaps) exist as a Taize’ group.

      The SSPX is not “without the Pope”. They are with the Pope as much as you are. You might do worse than reading the linked article.

      As to the Latin Mass you have the (rare) privilege to be able to attend to, you owe that to the SSPX too; then without them we would all be clapping and jumping like little children.

      It is true, one does not get to choose his cross. The SSPX have chosen theirs; which entails, unfortunately, being slandered by you.


    • Thank you, Mundabor, for pointing out what should be obvious at this point.

      Without Archbishop Lefebvre, there would have been no indult masses. The indult was a response by JP II to the Archbishop’s rejection of his offer to regularize the society. Summorum Pontificum was B XVI’s response to negotiations with Fellay.

      Sean, you would be wise to say a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the venerable archbishop. Without him, you wouldn’t be attending a Latin Mass today with the approval of the local ordinary.

    • Mundabor my friend,

      Thank you for your direct reply. It is a privilege to read your blog.

      God Bless you and your readers,

    • Mundabor my friend,

      I do believe that I am following a logical narrative; however, the game of ‘what if’ in history is essentially that, a game. We could imagine Lefebvre submitting to John Paul II, and Tradition growing since 1988 and ‘us’ in a better position. However, we have what, according to the reality of history, we have today.

      Today, we are back to 1970. However, thanks to Pope Benedict, we have Summorum Pontificum. Perfect? Well, at least it gives us a weapon more recent than the work of Pius V.

      I fear that your gratitude toward SSPX, in all due respect and without name calling, might be a little misplaced. It would be like thanking Luther and Calvin for the Council of Trent. Or the Albigensians for St Dominic. Yah, I guess it’s one way to look at it. At the Final Judgment we’ll all understand how much all these human efforts will amount to the Divine.

      I am afraid that it might, after all is said and done, hurt the things and Faith we value to have people, in the name of Tradition, demanding to be separate from the rest of the Church. We should consider this despite how pretty or ‘cool’ we find the flag that they carry.

      God Bless you and your readers,

    • Sean, I can only hope that by reading this blog you may in time understand the enormity of what you have written.

      I am, for the record, fully on the side of the SSPX, and would gladly go to my judgment this very moment with this allegiance.

      If you think I am supporting a quasi-heretical outfit, you should draw your consequence concerning your own soul.

      Once again – and it is the last one – the SSPX does not demand anything else but that the Church stops Her Neo-Modernist tendencies. Read the De Piante statement on my right-hand column.


    • I think it’s important to note that Benedict removed the excommunications. The SSPX bishops are neither schismatic nor heretical. Their current status in the church is unlike the status of Luther and Calvin at the time of Trent. In an odd position? Yes. Officially heretical or schismatic? No.

      Given that their position is the position that was held up until Vatican II, it will be rather difficult, if not impossible, to either excommunicate them or declare them heretics. To do so would be to “excommunicate” the teachings of Pius X himself. Benedict XVI was intelligent enough to see this.

      I’m not so sure about the current occupant of the office.

    • Benedict understood the excommunication did not do any harm to them, but certainly all Catholics with sense must understand the SSPX doesn’t do anything different than their grand-grandfathers, including obedience to the Pope unless the higher duty of obedience to Christ requires a different line.
      They wouldn’t call their grand-grandmothers heretic, but they call the SSPX heretic and schismatic. It just doesn’t make sense.


    • Mundabor my friend,

      You wrote:
      It is true, one does not get to choose his cross. The SSPX have chosen theirs; which entails, unfortunately, being slandered by you.

      My reply: I think you misunderstood me. We do not get to CHOOSE our Cross. We must accept the Cross God has given us. How do we know that SSPX consecrating Bishops was God’s Will?

      You said: I am, for the record, fully on the side of the SSPX, and would gladly go to my judgment this very moment with this allegiance.

      My reply: I will go to my judgement chained to the ROCK of Peter. As I understand it, as a simpleton, that is where Jesus told me to be.

      You said: Once again – and it is the last one – the SSPX does not demand anything else but that the Church stops Her Neo-Modernist tendencies.

      My Reply: When you say Church, with a capital C, are you talking about the indefectible and infallible Mother Church who was guaranteed by the Holy Spirit or are you talking about us fallible sinners who make up the Faithful and Leadership of the Church? Because the problem with your argument is that the fallible sinners who are modernist are not, in fact, Mother Church.

      We need to resist the spirit of the Age without damning the Church. Her members, no matter how ranked, including the Pope, might succumb to its stench. This was true of earlier Ages and is true now. Every Age has had to fumigate the Household of God from the smell of the Times.

      God Bless you and your readers,

    • Your answer doesn’t answer the question of what is supposed to be wrong with the SSPX. No one is saying the Church is supposed to be led by perfect men, or that the SSPX is “damning the Church”. On the contrary, I repeat here again that you Owe the Traditional Mass you are privileged to have to the very SSPX you slander.

      I suggest you have a good run at their websites (particularly the USA one) and read some of their books, like “one hundred years of Modernism”. It would cure you of any idea they might be in “schism”, or “damning the Church”.


  3. Yes , you are so right .
    Bishop Fellay did not hesitate to speak his mind and the TRUTH of the matter.
    The SSPX is going to “tell it like it is”
    The Catholic Church is not the same since Vatican II and we can all see that very clearly…
    I should say : since our eyes are wide open NOW!
    The Catholic Church is now going through a purification I believe.
    God help with these MODERN prelates ….but Our Lady told these things were going to happen. ROME will lose the Faith she said …..hold on my friends and get ready .
    God will not be mocked …God have mercy on us all!

  4. The NOM as evil is going too far, but the fruits of the NOM verge on and sometimes are evil.

    See Daily Telegraph to-day re “Blasphemous Lord’s Prayer — ” alteration in France and admission of 1966 compromise with Protestants to have a common “Our Father”!

  5. The idea of “reading Francis through Benedict” is comedy gold. 🙂

  6. Bishop Fellay has made it clear on previous occasions what he means by evil. The classic definition of evil is “the deprivation of a good which is due”. He pointed out to Cardinal Hoyos (when Hoyos had stated that both he and Pope Benedict thought that the new rite was lacking in various respects) that it was Cardinal Hoyos and Benedict who were admitting that the new rite was evil according to the classical definition. Cardinal Hoyos was unable to reply and castigated his aides for not coming to his assistance. I do believe that the word evil is an emotive one which makes people react and therefore I prefer defective when describing the new rite (although of course it can be much worse).

    • Excellent explanation on one side; on the other side, the good Bishop might avoid using such emotionally charged words in a context which will cause them to be echoed worldwide.
      I am now, therefore, 100% in agreement with him… 😉


  7. I’m still sad there was no accord. Imagine the wonderful influence the SSPX would have had…I think more and more mainline Catholics would have gravitated to the TLM. The sheer increase in numbers of Traditional Catholics in full communion would have multiplied greatly. Because NO parishes and diocese are in a state of deep decay, the SSPX would have been a lifeline. Their priests would go forth with zeal among the lost sheep of mainstream Catholicism. It’s a terrible loss.

    • Oh, I think Francis would have treated them like the Franciscans of the Immaculate, or worse.
      It’s not that Francis would have looked at their influence and said “how beautiful”…
      Narrow-minded…. Excessive doctrinal security… Rosary counting… He would have gone for their jugular before being in power one month…
      He should try now and see how they laugh…

  8. felicitasperpetua

    Bishop Fellay’s bluntness is understandable when you consider that this papacy has been a source of scandal and that Francis has been waging a war against pre-Vatican II Catholicism from day one(hacking his way through our venerable traditions with maniacal glee-and with the finesse of a machete through the jungle).
    The deliberate harshness can be seen as a way of distancing himself from Francis and his ideology, lest some of the faithful stray into the sedevacantist (or Bp. Williamson’s) camp. Given the sedevacantist undercurrent among the SSPX faithful in the US, the SSPX can’t afford to be associated with a flaming Modernist. The tone is more combative than is usual for Bp. Fellay but consistent with previous statements by other SSPX superiors. What is different is that he has clearly stated that reconciliation is out of the question. The Bishop is marshaling his troops and preparing a heavy artillery attack (i.e. another Rosary Crusade). I must admit that I once feared the Vatican would maneuver the SSPX into a dead- end agreement, but this man has demonstrated his worth as a leader.

  1. Pingback: Fellay filets antics of the Bishop of Rome… | EastSideHunky's Klobasa Klub

%d bloggers like this: