.

Below, find a copy of the page linked in footnote 38, above. IMHO, this is a great page.  It is well worth reading on separate occasions with a day or a week in between, so you have time to think about the contents.  
(Please forgive me for not including all the formatting found on truetrad, because there are numerous colors, emphasis, embedded links and font styles there which I am frankly too tired right now to put in here, as it would take about another hour to get it all just right.) :







Bishop Fellay and his spokesmen have given us all the strong impression that it is as clear as can be that the Motu Proprio, which supposedly freed the Latin Mass, was the fruit of the 1st Rosary Crusade.   Many people defend his conclusion to the hilt.

Now it is obvious that prayer is good; we certainly don't deny that.   What we do question very much is the insistence that the Motu Proprio is a heaven-sent answer to those rosaries, as if there could be no other explanation.

Let's take a look below.   Then you decide for yourself if Our Lady, Queen of the Universe, Hammer of Heresies, was truly the cause of the Motu Proprio.

Here is what the SSPX asked for:

Bishop Fellay said:

“But first of all we now insist on the preconditions. First, by granting them Rome will give us a pledge, and it will be a sign that we can trust them. They will have evidenced a certain desire for the good of tradition. We are not asking for half measures, we are asking for complete freedom of the Mass with no condition.”

Source: Bp. Fellay’s 10-14-06 interview, http://web.archive.org/web/20061111010724/http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/1Bp_Fellay_Conf_14-10-06.pdf


Here is another way Bishop Fellay stated the Rosary Crusade intention:

“the recognition of the right for any priest to celebrate the traditional Mass”.

Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/special-dossier-the-decree-of-january-21-2009-three-interviews-with-bishop-bernard-fellay/


This is what actually happened:

First,  the motu proprio did not free “free the Mass” simply, but was only a broader indult (i.e., permission) with conditions attached which no traditional Catholic priest could accept:

The motu proprio frees the traditional Mass but only for those priests who do not object to the new mass but are merely nostalgic for the traditional Mass. In other words, the pope’s motu proprio did not free the traditional Mass for any of those who adhere to the traditional Mass as a matter of principle.  You can see this for yourself from what the pope said at the time:

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the church's faith and prayer and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, also the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."    
Source: Pope Benedict XVI’s 7-7-07 letter accompanying the motu proprio (bold emphasis added).


The following quotes from the 2007 motu proprio itself show some of the restrictions placed on the traditional Mass:

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum. For celebration in accordance with one or the other missal, a priest does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own ordinary.

Note carefully: anyone who rejects the new mass as a matter of principle, could not accept the new mass during the sacred Triduum either.  Thus, the motu proprio is merely for the nostalgic, not for those who have firm principles and refuse to have any part in it.  This fits with the pope’s statement above, that priests cannot adhere to the traditional Mass as a matter of principle.


Here's another:

"Art. 5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration."
Second,  the motu proprio, at a minimum, puts the True Mass on the same level as the novus ordo mass; or even puts it on a level below the new mass:

Note that 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 docuмent [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).


Conclusion:  Are Bishop Fellay and his supporters correct to assume that the motu proprio  is heaven's answer to the Rosary Crusade?

Although acknowledging, in muted tones, certain “restrictions” placed on the traditional Mass, Bishop Fellay errs in telling us that the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм “gives freedom to all Latin-rite priests to choose either missal in offering their daily Mass.”  
Source:  http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2645


By contrast, the motu proprio itself shows that this is not always true, and that the motu proprio gives no help to faithful priests who reject the new mass in principle. The motu proprio, in reality, only helps the nostalgic priest.

One can regard the motu proprio as a “step in the right direction” for conciliar parishes, just as it would be, e.g., for them to abolish altar girls. However, such measures do not affect Catholics who adhere to the full traditional Faith and Sacraments of the Catholic Church.


Lastly, the motu proprio does not fulfill the SSPX request, which was the intention of the rosary crusade:

“We are not asking for half measures, we are asking for complete freedom of the Mass with no condition.”  
Source: Bp. Fellay’s 10-14-06 interview, http://web.archive.org/web/20061111010724/http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/1Bp_Fellay_Conf_14-10-06.pdf






{My observation.........} It would seem there is a problem with the following:

Although acknowledging, in muted tones, certain “restrictions” placed on the traditional Mass, Bishop Fellay errs in telling us that the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм “gives freedom to all Latin-rite priests to choose either missal in offering their daily Mass.”

The problem, it seems to me, stems from the definition of "freedom ... to choose."  For if it were in the broadest sense, a particular priest would be able to choose' only the Canonized Latin Mass and therefore would NEVER choose the Newmass.  But if the definition is selective, or narrow, it could be that in order to earn the 'freedom' to choose the CLM, any priest would be required to ALSO or FIRST show his GOOD WILL by demonstrating his willingness to ALSO celebrate the Newmass.  Therefore, by FAILING to celebrate the Newmass, such a priest would thereby LOSE his FREEDOM to choose the CLM within the confines of these "restrictions."


.

"A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX
18 December 2013"

What's up Neil.  Fr. Themann used to say Mass at my local SSPX roughly 1.5 years ago. After Mass, he would greet and briefly chit-chat with us locals (he drove in from Kansas). At the time, I would go to whatever Mass I could make. Meaning, one week it would be the SSPX, the Indult on another. I still went to the the N.O. when I got up late. At the time I didn't think remotely about these deeper issues. I've listened to his 2 hours CD talk (referenced above); and wished I knew then what I know now - if anything to mentally dig deeper with the issues behind the scenes. Interesting breakdowns.

Wassup, TPC.  TheRecusant #12 has no date for the Open Letter, but does have "Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, 2013" on the cover.  That would be October 15th, which was a Tuesday.

You're not alone.  You're among the vast average of Catholics today who frequent the CLM (Canonized Latin Mass).  That's nothing to be ashamed about.  The majority of 'Catholics' today are apostate, for lack of a better word.  Maybe I should say "lapsed."  At least you're reading, and if others would read, they'd perhaps pull themselves out of their morass of unknowing eventually.

It's not too late even for Fr. Themann, but it would seem to be the case, that if he sticks it out with the present trend from Menzingen, he's going to be one of the clothing-of-sheep-canines eventually.

Since you know him, maybe he would benefit from some of your prayers. But in any case, there is a whole shipment of facts and observations in this fine Open Letter, that would go a long way toward having a most elucidating NEXT meeting if you ever get the chance.  

If it were me, I hope I could keep my composure at such a meeting.  There is just so much to cover here.  


.

.




From the docuмent itself:



(The following quotes from the 2007 motu proprio itself show some of the restrictions placed on the traditional Mass):

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, any priest of Latin rite, whether secular or religious, can use the Roman Missal published by Pope Blessed John XXIII in 1962 or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, on any day except in the sacred triduum. For celebration in accordance with one or the other missal, a priest does not require any permission, neither from the Apostolic See nor his own ordinary."


(Note carefully: anyone who rejects the new mass as a matter of principle, could not accept the new mass during the sacred Triduum either.  Thus, the motu proprio is merely for the nostalgic, not for those who have firm principles and refuse to have any part in it.  This fits with the pope’s statement above, that priests cannot adhere to the traditional Mass as a matter of principle.)


(Here's another):

"Art. 5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration."

.

The links in the footnotes above are as follows:


In footnote 39 is this link:  http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2658

The linked page begins thusly (which bold area is the whole point of the link):


Letter from the Editor

I have three numbers to give you. The first is zero. This is the number of 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missals we currently have in stock. The second number is 700. This is the number of our daily hand-missals sold last Friday to a church in the Chicago archdiocese celebrating the Mass of the Extraordinary Form (a.k.a. the Latin Mass of 1962). The third number is 105,650. This is the number of dollars contributed in September by our apostolate partners allowing Angelus Press to amp up its revised production schedule for the rest of 2007.


The docuмent linked in footnote 40 could not be found.



The docuмents linked in footnote 41

 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay.html
is currently active
Likewise the following page is currently active, as well: (& also on:)
http://web.archive.org/web/20100921023539/http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-roodepoort-south-africa-september-15th-2009/

Note: the last link above is repaired, while the one in 41, above, is not repaired.



Finally, my footnote {41.a} is as follows (it says "41.c" by mistake):  

41.a    Liberals in general share this tacit principle:  they abhor principles per se, try to avoid talking about them at all costs, and attempt to expunge them from textbooks and manuals wherever they can, and they try not to get caught denying principles.  The reason for this common tacit principle is, that when their tacit principles are defined, it destroys their lies.

In any event, it must be asked:  Regarding the quote, "The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations," --  What is the problem with getting into an embarrassing situation?  Does the author somehow think that getting into an embarrassing situation is sinful?  How many martyrs got into embarrassing situations by way of their martyrdom?  Did they therefore commit a sin by doing so?  Doesn't it make a big difference as to what the situation is?  A bank robber in the act of holding up a bank might be thought of as being in an embarrassing situation.  So the embarrassment of the situation has little to do with its moral propriety or impropriety, no?

For example, the difference between making a sacrilegious confession and making a good confession is often one of embarrassment, for a good confession can be an occasion for great embarrassment, whereas in order to AVOID the embarrassment, the penitent could lie to the confessor and "save face" only to deceive and commit an additional sin.  

Therefore, to say "The faithful must be very cautious and not get themselves into embarrassing situations," cannot be good advice under many circuмstances, and it is therefore very bad advice in general.  So what's it doing here?!?!

.

.

It seems to me that the devil is hard at work destroying the resources and links to docuмents on the Internet that give support and background to the claims of the Resistance.  

Some significant portion of the links that Recusant #12 provide are dead links, and try as I may, I cannot find any alternative access to them.

One possibility is "archive.org" but the site has been offline as often as I have tried it lately.  As I understand it, you can go there and find images of what the Internet USED to have on previous days in the recent past.  How anyone can have that quantity of data storage available (most of which is rarely, if ever, accessed) seems a bit hard to imagine.

One might accuse the Menzingen-denizens of eliminating these sources, but as for me, that's just a hunch.  We do have evidence of +F blocking access to certain information, such as his hoarding the copyright to the Sermons of ABL, and for prohibiting the publication of a recent book by one good French priest, which is a book containing truthful data that is highly inconvenient to +F's agenda of normalization with modernist Rome.


.

.

It seems to me that this is one of the strongest points of this entire Open Letter:  

b) Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!

One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this purported “click” would occur when the new mass is used under the “best,” [or] strictest conditions.  But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself! [42a]

Bishop Fellay asserts that the priest’s ordination character gives a priest the same reaction, only stronger, to the traditional Mass and, sometimes, also to the new mass [!?]

42a.   This purported "click" of Bishop Fellay is utter foolishness.  It is entirely subjective.  It is subjectivism imported into the Church's doctrine.  This is what the unclean spirit of Vat.II relies on wholesale.  Bishop Fellay is resorting to the wiles and snares of the devil in this.  

He is turning over the objective assessment of the whole essence of the Faith of Catholics to a "click" that one supposedly "feels" which gives one the power to pass judgment on Church doctrine itself.  +Williamson has warned against this problem numerous times.  

+W's penchant to raise the red flag over this false doctrine of +Fellay is PERHAPS THE PRINCIPAL REASON +W WAS EXPELLED FROM THE XSPX.    

+Fellay's reliance on this stupid "click" technology, this bad hypothesis, this pernicious error of deception, is so important to +Fellay and the Menzingen-denizens that they had to be free to disseminate its message without the unstoppable reaction from the VOICE OF REASON coming inexorably from the mouth of Bishop Williamson.  

The good authors of the Open Letter are too well-mannered to put this into plain language for all to see, but I don't have that handicap, thank God, and by extension, also thanks to Matthew.


.

.

(from pg. 24):

There are two problems here:

a) Bishop Fellay’s statements are not the traditional Catholic teaching about the role of the baptismal character.  Catholics are led to recognize what is good and evil through grace, virtue and especially the gifts of the Holy Ghost, not by our baptismal character.

b) Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!

One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this purported “click” would occur when the new mass is used under the “best,” [or] strictest conditions.  But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself! [42a]

Bishop Fellay asserts that the priest’s ordination character gives a priest the same reaction, only stronger, to the traditional Mass and, sometimes, also to the new mass [!?]

His assertion is apparently a novelty for the priestly character also. Id.

      On another occasion, Bishop Fellay indicated that the new
      mass is good when used under the “strictest” conditions.
      The SSPX quoted Cardinal Canizares as saying:  On one
      occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the
      Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just
      came from an abbey that is near Florence.  If Archbishop
      (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he
      would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used
      at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.

We leave aside that Bishop Fellay apparently attended a new mass, despite the duty of all Catholics to avoid all sacrilege!  In this statement quoted by Cardinal Canizares, Bishop Fellay says that, if Archbishop Lefebvre had seen the new mass celebrated strictly, then he would not have taken “the step that he did.”  This “step” must refer either to founding the SSPX or opposing the new mass.

What Bishop Fellay necessarily implies is that Archbishop Lefebvre was reacting against particular abuses occurring in the celebration of the new mass and that Archbishop Lefebvre would not have otherwise considered it necessary to found the SSPX (or to oppose the new mass), if only the new mass would have been celebrated without abuses.

In other words, Bishop Fellay is indicating that Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered the new mass acceptable in its “strict” form!

a) Here is another example of Bishop Fellay’s softness on the new mass, this time from a 2013 interview. He states: “[W]hat needs to be corrected [regarding the new mass] … can be done by an instruction from the Congregation for the Divine Cult and the Discipline of the Sacraments.” Id.  As an example of what needs to be corrected, Bishop Fellay mentions the need for a more accurate translation of the new mass into the vernacular. Id.  In two ways, Bishop Fellay indicates that the new mass is not inherently bad and is not itself the problem:
The example he gives about what needs to be corrected regarding the new mass, does not address the inherent evil of the new mass but only translations and abuses; and

b) The Vatican Congregation does not have the power to remake the new mass itself.  Thus, when Bishop Fellay says the Vatican Congregation can make the necessary corrections related to the new mass, he is implying that the new mass itself does not need to be simply destroyed or entirely and radically changed.  


SSPX Liberalism Did Not Begin In 2011

In your hypothetical third objection [39:10] which you treat as if it came from persons opposed to the current SSPX liberalism, you suppose it to be granted by them that “up until 2011, so the argument goes, Bishop Fellay put doctrine in first place. Now he puts the practical agreement, the canonical structure in first place.”  As is true of most people resisting the current SSPX’s liberalism, we hold that Bishop Fellay’s slide into liberalism began much earlier.


___________________________________
43.       http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm ; see the analysis here:
http://www.truetrad.com/index.php/the-truth/problems-in-the-sspx/slow-subtle-poisonfrom-the-sspx/all-poison-newest-first/233-bishop-fellay-s-scandalous-comment-in-favor-ofthe-new-mass

44.      http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-of-bishop-fellay-in-nouvelles-de-france/ & http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/pope_benedicts_last_major_act_bishop_fellay_interview_2-15-2013.htm

45.      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_pro_20000628_profilo_it.html



Note:  I have not verified the links in these 3 footnotes, so I have no idea if they're working or not at this time.  


.

.

Is he putting truth first? [Footnote 49a, on page 26, above]


The Open Letter asks if Bishop Fellay is putting truth first in the examples given.  But as Bill Clinton said, "It all depends on the meaning of the word, 'is'."  Well, actually, in this particular case, it all depends on the meaning of the word "truth."  

We can go directly to the words of Fr. Themann to explore that definition, for in a summary page quoted in another thread or two here on CI, Fr. Themann make the alarming announcement of a most curious proposition, the likes of which may well had never been committed to paper before this particular instance.  


He wrote: I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that since this curious and ambiguous statement says that, among other things, truth is a question, how much further does one need to go down that road before one arrives at "the question of truth?"

How many ways are there to ask a question of truth?  It would seem there may be no end to the ways.  

One of the ways would be asking, "Is he putting truth first?"  

But for Fr. Themann, who says that truth is firstly a question of the ideas for which words stand,  why would anyone criticize him for proposing or implying, that when Bishop Fellay says there might be another principle that would be more accurate than Catholics demanding freedom to justify practicing the true religion, that this could be +Fellay's way of putting truth first?  That is, when we begin with the foundational principle that truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand, how then would can we say that anyone is not being consistent with their stated principles when they say there might be another principle that would be more accurate than Catholics demanding freedom to justify practicing the true religion?  

When one starts playing around with words, mixing in modern idioms (A is not firstly a question of B, &c.) and playing fast and loose with language, there are consequences.  

When you are a prominent Catholic priest, putting down in writing what truth is, what truth is not, what truth firstly is, what truth is not firstly, what truth is OTHER than what it is not firstly, and so on, it might fool some of the readers some of the time, but it's not going to deceive even the elect, insomuch as it would seem possible for it to do so (cf. Mt. xxiv. 24).

 
.