Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?  (Read 3296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15064
  • Reputation: +9980/-3161
  • Gender: Male
How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
« on: April 29, 2012, 11:02:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He was elected by the General Chapter (twice) for 12 year terms.

    The General Chapter is comprised of the 4 bishops; the district superiors; senior priests with long tenure; and I think also by seminary rectors (but not positive on that last one).

    The Superior General does have total control over all aspects of the SSPX, and may choose to retain and delegate as he sees fit.

    There is no legal maneuver the General Chapter has over the Superior General (though they certainly can have great influence, which would be taken into account).

    Distric Superiors are voted by the priests of that district, but their vote needs to be ratified by Menzingen.

    The District Superior determines the assignment for the priests in his district.

    Regarding Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson:

    1) Yes, Bishop Fellay had unilateral authority to do as he saw fit regarding Bishop Williamson, according to the statutes of the SSPX;

    2) The quality of that treatment or the prudence in doing so is another matter.

    3) I speculate (so take it with a grain of salt) that Bishop Williamson was removed as part of the plan to get an agreement with Rome; Bishop Fellay has wanted one since the Campos days; the removal was just a few years after that; and the publicized letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson showed plainly that Bishop Fellay has an issue with the too-traditionalness of Anglo SSPXers (i.e., My speculation is that he knows he needs to weed them out to get a deal with Rome; this speculation is aided by the example of Bishop WIlliamson; the letter of Fr. Paul Morgan on the British SSPX website critical of a deal with Rome; the letter of S. America Superior Fr. Bouchacourt to his priests with the same thoughts on the matter; the appointment of Fr. Hegenberger to Angelus; Fr. Rostand to the US District; etc).

    Note: This is not an accusation against Bishop Fellay; just my speculation on whay what is clearly happening is happening.

    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31179
    • Reputation: +27095/-494
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #1 on: April 29, 2012, 02:56:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino

    Knowing it is merely a "pious union" (as is the "Children of Mary") and not a religious order, how do they go about electing their head?


    Will you shut up about that already. You sound like a broken record. A bitter, jealous broken record.

    You're just a bitter, jealous sedevacantist that WISHES your maverick organization had the same proper connection to the Catholic Church of old.

    The SSPX was actually approved by the appropriate Church authorities when it was founded -- as an organization dedicated to the formation of good, holy priests.

    In fact, for the first few years, most priests coming out of Archbishop Lefebvre's seminary were incardinated into their local dioceses!


    Their wider de-facto mission to defend the priesthood, Mass, and Catholic Faith itself came about later.

    At any rate, it was a lifeboat put there by the oceanliner itself -- not a makeshift raft constructed out of duct tape and timbers after the ship was half-sunk. Such would be the various sedevacantist groups. Sure, they're trying to keep the Faith and all, and many of them are of good will, but each of them was created as a rebel group of sorts, with no Catholic Church approbation. You *always* have to wonder about how they were formed -- the motivation/sanity of the founder, etc.
    After all, we're talking about men who have taken matters into their own hands.

    But the SSPX was arranged by Divine Providence -- literally arranged by God Himself -- to help preserve the Faith during this Crisis, when many will be tested.

    I mean, God took Archbishop Lefebvre, a prelate with a great love of the Church and lots of missionary experience -- who was right on the point of retirement -- and had a bunch of seminarians beg him to train them "the old way". +Lefebvre left the whole matter in God's hands, saying "I'll ask the local Bishop, and see how he responds, to find out God's will."

    The result?

    The bishop INSISTED that he start such a seminary!

    How about that for a sign from God!

    I'll stay with the SSPX as the #1 place to keep the Faith in 2012. As long as they stay true to their mission, I'll be around, supporting and helping their cause.

    Bishop Williamson always warned his seminarians: If the SSPX ever "caves" or stops faithfully guarding tradition, God could raise up another organization just as easily, "from the very stones" if need be.

    P.S. The fruits of the SSPX seal the deal for me. Our Lord told us to judge a tree by its fruits, and I have done just that. There is no organization that has had more persecution from within and without (splits, strife, having properties stolen, etc.), yet still experienced constant growth. Read the early days of many of the large religious orders: the story will sound very familiar.

    It seems to be the work of God.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #2 on: April 29, 2012, 04:01:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: Matthew
    Quote from: Cupertino

    Knowing it is merely a "pious union" (as is the "Children of Mary") and not a religious order, how do they go about electing their head?


    Will you shut up about that already. You sound like a broken record. A bitter, jealous broken record.

    You're just a bitter, jealous sedevacantist that WISHES your maverick organization had the same proper connection to the Catholic Church of old.


    If mentioning the truth that the SSPX is a pious union rather than a religious order is against this forum's rules, then certainly I won't mention it again. Is it against the rules, Matthew?

    I am certainly not jealous that the SSPX is a pious union.  I think it is smart to attempt to form pious unions to help organize efforts against the ecuмenical heresies. How well any attempt succeeds is another topic for discussion.




    The SSPX is an Order without vows, as per the 1917 Code of Canon Law.


    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1978/-0
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #3 on: April 29, 2012, 04:13:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    Quote from: Cupertino

    Knowing it is merely a "pious union" (as is the "Children of Mary") and not a religious order, how do they go about electing their head?


    P.S. The fruits of the SSPX seal the deal for me. Our Lord told us to judge a tree by its fruits, and I have done just that. There is no organization that has had more persecution from within and without (splits, strife, having properties stolen, etc.), yet still experienced constant growth. Read the early days of many of the large religious orders: the story will sound very familiar.

    It seems to be the work of God.


    Well, I am going to have to dispute this.  While the SSPX in general seems to have good fruits, it seems like its fruits in Europe have been somewhat sour within the past decade or so.  Those places where priests are strongly influenced by or were formed chiefly by Bishop Williamson, such as the United States, seem to have better fruits (though the SSPX in the United States has an incredible host of problems of its own).  It seems like Bishop Williamson and the Archbishop have had good fruits, whereas Bishop Fellay and his entourage have had bad fruits -- namely, in Europe, moral laxism, bourgeois worldliness, and creeping liberal tendencies (the latter especially amongst the German apostolate).  This makes the goodness of the SSPX-as-a-whole's fruits a bit less clear cut than you seem to be supposing, Matthew.  

    Besides, it seems like the CMRI has some good fruits, too.  Really, it seems to me that those who truly resist the Council as such have good fruits so long as they do so in a humble and honest manner, always trusting God, not reaching further than they ought to. I have heard of very good fruits from the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii in their French apostolate, even better than anything I have heard of in the US, as another example.

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #4 on: May 01, 2012, 09:15:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    I found out from an SSPX site that Bp. Fellay was voted in for a second 12-year term in 2006. So, he will be there in total control until 2018.

    LordPhan, the 1917 code says nothing about the SSPX. Show me a quote from their constitutions that they are an order with vows. Perhaps they changed their constitutions since I last heard?




    Without Vows.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #5 on: May 01, 2012, 09:33:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Canon 673.


    Nov, 1 1970

    The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is officially recognized by the local ordinary of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, Bishop Charriere.

    as per Canon Law they are approved by the Church.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #6 on: May 01, 2012, 09:40:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just told you, Canon 673.

    Quote
    The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it.

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #7 on: May 01, 2012, 09:51:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I assumed you have the Code from your post "It isn't in the Code of Canon Law" and had just missed it in the 2000+ Canons. But if you were speaking without any basis and need me to post the pages I will later, but I don't have the time at the moment.



    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #8 on: May 01, 2012, 11:03:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    Unfortunately, LordPhan, I won't be talking about the SSPX-order-or-not anymore. Matthew doesn't want me to discuss it, at least for now.


    He didn't say you couldn't discuss it; he was referring to how annoying you were being. Hence the "Will you shut up about that already. You sound like a broken record."

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #9 on: May 01, 2012, 11:25:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    Quote from: s2srea
    Quote from: Cupertino
    Unfortunately, LordPhan, I won't be talking about the SSPX-order-or-not anymore. Matthew doesn't want me to discuss it, at least for now.


    He didn't say you couldn't discuss it; he was referring to how annoying you were being. Hence the "Will you shut up about that already. You sound like a broken record."


    Considering how it was like the second time in as many weeks I mentioned "that", the word "shut up" means just what it says in English. The level of annoyance is in proportion to how much of an SSPXer you are.


    Okay Cupertino. I was just sayin.

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1953/-361
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #10 on: May 01, 2012, 12:17:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is silly. We have heard infinitum from Society leaders and priests that Rome hosts a new religion; she harms one spiritually; she is to be disobeyed and ignored. And, yet, some of these leaders and priests go all girly when in the company of those "who must not be obeyed", completely wiping out their sincerity and credibility. At least Bp. Williamson is honest about the problematic ship he still clings to and counsels the faithful to be responsible for their own spiritual foundation. I have deep respect for those priests, alive or dead, who decided to give the Society a wide berth for various reasons because of serious shortcomings or a disliking for its own way of doing things. The Society is not the Church. Its credentials are no better or worse that any other body of independents born of necessity. Buying them from the conciliar church hardly improves their standing.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #11 on: May 05, 2012, 07:38:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    This is silly. We have heard infinitum from Society leaders and priests that Rome hosts a new religion; she harms one spiritually; she is to be disobeyed and ignored. And, yet, some of these leaders and priests go all girly when in the company of those "who must not be obeyed", completely wiping out their sincerity and credibility. At least Bp. Williamson is honest about the problematic ship he still clings to and counsels the faithful to be responsible for their own spiritual foundation. I have deep respect for those priests, alive or dead, who decided to give the Society a wide berth for various reasons because of serious shortcomings or a disliking for its own way of doing things. The Society is not the Church. Its credentials are no better or worse that any other body of independents born of necessity. Buying them from the conciliar church hardly improves their standing.


    You slightly misrepresent the traditional SPX position with regard to Rome:

    The SPX never said Rome is to be disobeyed and ignored.

    The SSPX rightly distinguishes between true and false obedience

    It is a sin (i.e., servility) to obey in things sinful

    So the Catholic will obey Rome in things not sinful or contrary/harmful to the faith.

    But will resist Rome (as Paul resisted Peter to the face) when she commands and legislates against the Faith.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #12 on: May 05, 2012, 09:49:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Fellay Condemns.......Bishop Fellay.

    Everything He Says About Campos/Bishop Rifan Now Applies to Him:




    Superior General’s Letter # 63
    - January 2003 -


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Friends and Benefactors,

    Our relations with Rome

    Once again our letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

    Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the Pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

    Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

    However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle. On the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

    The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.

    Changes in Campos

    Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome’s offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

    For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one’s adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that “Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass”, or, “Campos has completely given up Tradition”. However, that being said, here is what we observe:

    1. The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI’s encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II’s traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, “Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church’s Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today”.

    2. The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favourable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: “We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting”. Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome’s gesture in favour of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation…They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

    3. Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman… “We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer”, said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

    4. Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: “So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!”. We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: “Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It’s not the same thing”. That was Rome’s argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal’s curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today’s Rome. “We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition”, said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chr

    étienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing….

    So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.

    Leaving the SSPX behind

    Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

    A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

    To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants – for the moment.

    One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome’s offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome’s offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect’s plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

    To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that “It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny”.

    Life inside the SSPX

    Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labours. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.

    In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good! These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops’ severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of Sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the Sisters: “When the Society of Saint Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania”. May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop’s expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.

    Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole Traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.

    A young priest said to us, “If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: ‘Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!’ But I don’t know the old Mass, I don’t know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?” Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. “I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass”.

    How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!

    But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.

    At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.

    +Bishop Fellay

    January 6, 2003

    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +121/-6
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #13 on: May 06, 2012, 08:20:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9320
    Quote
    CantateDomino: INTENTION: We pray that ABL obtains for us from Heaven this precise miracle: That at the July General chapter, the current leadership of the SSPX, from SG to Assistants to District Superiors, be deposed and expelled from the fraternity.


    An intention as this is not good.

    We are not revolutionaries we are Catholics.

    If you do not approve of the current leadership then maybe you should flood Heaven with prayer for them that they be helped through this mess rather than coming with a torches and pitchforks posse to unseat them.

    I wouldn't pray this prayer with you or anyone for such an intention.


    'Dawn Marie' is a good sort and quite correctly opposes a sell out.Whilst her point of view is typical of the womenfolk, I disagree. I personally believe we are called to be Warrior Saints and are revolutionaries. There is nothing wrong with having the Cross in one hand and a sword in the other. Like the Muslims, we Catholics should realise we are engaged in our own holy war ever bit as bloody as the battlefield.

    I remember a 'iacsi' posting on Ignis Ardens suggested a march on Menzigen. Was it a joke? Was it tongue in cheek? Did it happen? I have no idea.

    I'm not suggesting faithful descend on Menzingen with "torches and pitchforks" but an idea of a delegation was previously discussed. Faithful from each SSPX District would travel over to seek a meeting with Bishop Fellay.

    I have no objection travelling over but shall leave the pitchfork behind.

    On a serious note, we should pray. In this we can find agreement.

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +121/-6
    • Gender: Male
    How did Bp. Fellay become head of the SSPX?
    « Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 08:24:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well stated, cantatedomino
     :applause:

    http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9320
    Quote
    Dear Dawn Marie,

    I understand you and I respect your opinion. I do not take what you say lightly. But I think two things: One, we are at war, and when at war we have to be decisive. The SSPX has been hijacked. You might not use that term. It is a harsh term. But I have been reading your posts for weeks, and you are saying that in essence. Two, one or another of the following is inevitable - either the current leadership is deposed, or ABL is deposed. The two contradict each other. They cannot both stand as the principle of the same house. This to me is the import of the sign from Heaven.

    We see that the Archbishop's counsels are being ignored. Soon his position will be abandoned and SSPX seminarians will be formed according to a new spirit.

    War is disgusting, hard, violent, and heart wrenching; but, as Our Lord said: From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. Matthew 11:12

    If we do not practice heroic militancy now, we will lose everything.

    One last thought - Bishop Fellay has already expelled several SSPX priests from the order for voicing an objection to his policies or telling the truth about Rome. Bishop Fellay is warring violently against those who resist the path he has chosen. The sound bites he is releasing now are a warning. He is delivering to us the neo-SSPX party line. Those who defect from it will be expelled, either directly or by unrelenting pressure. Bishop Fellay will brook no opposition inside the order.

    Of course we must pray for his soul, but if he is dangerous to our souls, then we must ask God to remove Him.

    Thank you, Dawn Marie, for voicing your feelings about this. I know in the end, we are both praying for the same end, if not the same means.

    God bless you!