Author Topic: Bishop Fellay supports a Hybrid (Read 12740 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** July 02, 2015, 02:28:55 PM »

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/bishop-fellay-and-his-support-for-new.html

In his interview responding to the question: "What do you think of the proposition of Cardinal Sarah to introduce the traditional offertory in the new Mass?", Bishop Fellay said:

"This idea is not new; it has been circulating in Rome already for about ten years ago. I'm happy that it is being taken up. Some criticize this proposal saying that it would be to mix the sacred with the profane. On the contrary, in a perspective of sanitation of the Church, I think this would be a great step forward, because the offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass and of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Most Holy Trinity, directed to God in reparation for sins by the priest, accompanied by his faithful. And this would gradually lead the faithful to the traditional Mass they lost."

Cardinal Sarah

What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?

"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."

Cardinal Koch among his friends

This and nothing more is the objective of this "reform of the reform". This is also stated by arch-modernist Cardinal Kurt Koch:

"Here also shines the deepest sense of the reform of the reform put in motion by Pope Benedict XVI with the motu proprio; just as the Second Vatican Council had been preceded by a liturgical movement, whose ripe fruits were brought into the constitution on the Liturgy, also there exists today the need for a new liturgical movement, which has as its objective to bring to fruition the true heritage of Vatican II in the current situation of the Church, while consolidating the theological foundations of the liturgy . (...) The motu proprio is only the beginning of this new liturgical movement. In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite. (...) The Motu Proprio can be converted into a solid ecuмenical bridge if it is only perceived and received as 'a hope for the whole Church'."

Fr. Jacqmin SSPX

Father Jacqmin SSPX gave a good warning speaking on the betrayal of Menzingen:

"Let's be careful. This is the 'unity...in Vatican II': there are two Masses because there are two groups, and the conflict must lead to progress and evolution (cf. Pascendi No 36): the reform of the reform, 'the mass of St. Thesis' [a play on words in French for synthesis:translator] (as, according to Hegel, the useful and necessary conflict between a thesis and an antithesis produces a 'synthesis' that leads to progress through an evolution)."

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/07/bishop-fellay-and-his-support-for-new.html

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** July 02, 2015, 02:37:09 PM »

This is the damning part for Bishop Fellay's reputation:

Quote

What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?

"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."

This is revolutionary.

The Tridentine Mass has NOTHING to learn from the Novus Ordo, just like the Catholic Church has nothing to learn from the Lutherans or Methodists.

But in the heretical world of Vatican II, BOTH of those things have something to learn from their illegitimate, demonic counterparts.

Note that Bishop Fellay didn't qualify anything he said. He was simply for it. So we have to assume he has all the thinking and motivations of Cardinal Sarah.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** July 02, 2015, 04:10:48 PM »

The hybrid Mass has been talked about for ten years. I think that this is clearly what he is indicating here. Really, though it's not just talked about. It was put in practice from the begininng of Summorum Pontificuм. It is Hegelian to its core, which reflects Ratzinger's image. Leave it to the German theorists.

I remember hearing and reading a good bit of this in the days of the pseudo-hype of the Motu Proprio. Here in Brazil, in our state there are three valid Masses that I know of [the rest are doubtful because they say "for all" as ordered by the Brazilian bishops I believe]. There is the resistance Mass, of course the only one I would ever support or attend. But the Campos priests come here nearby. The word is that they offer the Traditional Mass in mostly Portuguese, the Credo, the Our Father, the Gospel, the Epistle, the Agnus Dei, but they use the Traditional Rite. They also have lay announcers who hold a microphone and announce the page of the ordinary...ridiculous. Their community doesn't grow because the priests cannot fix the issue of half dressed women presenting themselves for communion and confession. I'm not sure but I think that in extreme cases of scantily clad women, they have had to send them away without the sacraments. Then in the capital, in what seems like a desperate attempt of competition with our Mass, there is a diocesan Mass in a historic church. This is the crowd that loves phrases like "I have to obey my Church" or "full-communion with Rome" and "with permission from the bishop of the diocese". They are some of the same who attend with the Campos priests I believe and they are a really nauseous, annoying crowd. They fall into the legalism with obedience, but violate all rubrics of the Mass. They use electric light bulb candles and who knows what else. It is essentially a Paul VI- Bugnini Mass in Latin Ad Orientem with hardly any genuflections and a wide variety of other novelties. So, as you can see, you have the Traditional Mass in the Vernacular, the New Mass in Latin, or those notoriously disobedient resistors. The hybrid Mass is old news. That Bishop Fellay supports it is more clear evidence that he has sold out the Archbishop, but of course, we cannot prove it. Bah!

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #3 on:** July 02, 2015, 06:51:27 PM »

One of the big lies of +Fellay is The Hybrid Mass (or "reform of the reform" or "New 1962 Missal"), or rather, its denial. Cardinal Ratzinger first speaks about this in his book "Spirit of the liturgy". In this book, the cardinal says that two rites are difficult to manage so eventually, they would have to be merged into ONE!. Summorum Pontificuм is the vehicle to bring the 1962 & N. Ordo missals into ONE. The printing was postponed until the canonizations of the post VII popes. That is taken care of, so the "new 1962 Missal" is around the corner. +Fellay knows is coming and now has to start selling it to the trusting members/faithful.

This missal has been experimented in different communities in France, Italy, USA and other countries. It is the Mass said by the EWTN Friars and the Community of St. Martin in France as well as the one at the "Abbey near Florence" which bishop Fellay witnessed with some of his priests according to Cardinal Canizares.

Why lie? In February 2011, in the 54 answers by Bishop Fellay he says:

Quote

http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm
54 Answers from +Fellay, February 2011:
Question #20: For a long time the Pope has been speaking about “the reform of the reform”. Do you think that he hopes to try to reconcile the old liturgy with the teaching of Vatican II in a reform that would be a middle term?
Listen, at the moment we know nothing about it! We know that he wants this reform, but where that reform is headed? Will everything eventually be blended together, “the ordinary form” and “the extraordinary form”? That is not what we find in the Motu Proprio, which requires us to distinguish the two “forms” and not to mix them: this is very wise. We have to wait and see; for the moment let us stick to what the Roman authorities say.

Now in 2015, he says:

Quote

"This idea is not new; it has been circulating in Rome already for about ten years ago. I'm happy that it is being taken up. Some criticize this proposal saying that it would be to mix the sacred with the profane. On the contrary, in a perspective of sanitation of the Church, I think this would be a great step forward, because the offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass and of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Most Holy Trinity, directed to God in reparation for sins by the priest, accompanied by his faithful. And this would gradually lead the faithful to the traditional Mass they lost."

To fully understand this hybrid missal, read:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificuм2.htm

If SSPX members read every word of these docuмents instead of listening and blindly trusting +Fellay, they would have jumped ship a long time ago. At least the ones who want to remain faithful to tradition.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** July 02, 2015, 07:30:06 PM »

I'd like to point out here that a person -- your average good-willed Catholic -- often has a major choice to make:

Is he ignorant?
or
Is he malicious/doing it on purpose?

Well, I think we can eliminate Bishop Fellay being an ignoramus. He's neither uneducated nor slow of mind. He's been a cleric for a very long time. What do you suppose he's been doing with all his years? Raising a family? Watching TV? Working a secular job?

If he WERE in ignorance about something like this, it would be more even more damning in many ways (because he would have spent decades as a cleric doing worldly or unbecoming things).

For a single man to not find a few hours to learn about this over DECADES, he would have to not care -- again, that would be quite damning. In other words, it would be willful ignorance, not invincible.

I, for one, am not prepared to believe +Fellay has been thus squandering his time since he was ordained. I have no reason to believe such a supposition.

Most of his life has been spent as a cleric, which involves much prayer, reflection, and study. Remember, he was barely 30 when he was consecrated bishop in 1988 (he was born April 12, 1958). "On 29 June 1982 he was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre." So he was 24 when he was ordained.

He's had 33 years of priesthood so far. That's a lot of time to study up on Church issues.

richard · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2015, 07:50:48 PM »

It's just a matter of time,the sellout is picking up speed. My question is this,at what point or what will it take for the SSPXers to see the light and jump ship?

claudel · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2015, 07:54:12 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

This is the damning part for Bishop Fellay's reputation:

Quote
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?

"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."

This is revolutionary.

It's nothing of the sort, at least not for Bishop Fellay. The far better translation of the relevant passage at Rorate Caeli and in the SSPX newsletter reads as follows:

Quote

What do you think of Cardinal Sarah's suggestion of introducing the traditional offertory into the New Mass?

It is not a new idea; it has been around in Rome for ten years. I am glad it has been taken up again. Some criticize the idea, saying it is a way of mixing the profane with the sacred. On the contrary, in the perspective of bringing health back to the Church, I think it would be a great step forward, because the Offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass, of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Blessed Trinity, offered by the priest to God in reparation for sins, and accompanied by the faithful. And that would gradually bring the faithful back to the traditional Mass they have lost.

The most that can be said of this passage, especially its last sentence, is that +Fellay might be well advised to remove his rose-colored glasses. Of the remaining sentences, no. 1 is true; no. 2 is a debatable opinion (not one I share incidentally); no. 3 is true; no. 4 is half questionable opinion (through "great step forward"), half a statement of plain dogmatic fact; no. 5 is the rosy scenario again.

Matthew's gotcha quote is a statement by Cardinal Sarah. While its content and theology are utter rubbish—to that extent I am fully in agreement with my pointing and spluttering colleagues—it has been appended as a gloss to +Fellay's statement in such a way as seems calculated to deceive the reader into believing that +Fellay either explicitly endorsed Sarah's words or certainly would have done so had he been offered the chance.

In the absence of any directly supportive evidence for the charge, +Fellay may well be convicted of poor judgment (i.e., by those commenting on this thread), but he must be acquitted of sacrilegiously equating the conciliar "rite" with the Traditional liturgy. Even those who sincerely believe that he represents a grave danger to the Faith—indeed, especially those—owe him the courtesy of not condemning him on the basis of a calculated misrepresentation.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2015, 07:57:29 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Well, I think we can eliminate Bishop Fellay being an ignoramus. He's neither uneducated nor slow of mind. He's been a cleric for a very long time. What do you suppose he's been doing with all his years?

He has been conspiring with GREC since 1997. Interestingly enough, that same year (1997), JPII gave Fr. Fessio (Ignatius Press) a letter of permission to publish a missalette with the same exact instructions as S.P. In 2007, as soon as S.P. came out, Fr. Fessio published his own hybrid missalette which caused a lot of indignation among traditionalists. I bought the Missalette out of curiosity and the letter of JPII giving Fr. Fessio (his good friend) permission, was published in the first page of the missalette with the date 1997!

First Friday · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:08:23 PM »

Back in the summer of 2012 Marie Aux. posted the so-called "hybrid missal" would be put into use by the SSPX in Advent of that year. It didn't happen.

Bishop Fellay is NOT for an overall third rite, a blending of the two rites. All he was saying in the recent interview is that, for the NO Mass, a big step like fixing the Offertory is a big step in the right direction.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:24:45 PM »

Quote from: First Friday

Back in the summer of 2012 Marie Aux. posted the so-called "hybrid missal" would be put into use by the SSPX in Advent of that year. It didn't happen.

Bishop Fellay is NOT for an overall third rite, a blending of the two rites. All he was saying in the recent interview is that, for the NO Mass, a big step like fixing the Offertory is a big step in the right direction.

True. I also published on IA an email (I may still have it) from Baronius Press confirming the printing of the "New 1962 Missal" was almost ready. I specifically asked and confirmed that it was according to S.P/U.E. Shortly after, the publication was stopped/cancelled. Germany had ordered a lot of missals from the Roman publisher (can't recall the name) and a German friend (related by marriage to an SSPX priest) said they cancelled the publication until the canonizations of the post Vatican II popes so they could be added to the missal.

If you are looking for a liar, look elsewhere. By the way, did you sign up just to accuse me? I must have struck a nerve!

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:38:33 PM »

Quote from: richard

It's just a matter of time,the sellout is picking up speed. My question is this,at what point or what will it take for the SSPXers to see the light and jump ship?

If and when +T de M jumps.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:43:33 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: Matthew
This is the damning part for Bishop Fellay's reputation:

Quote
What is this that Cardinal Sarah proposes and Bishop Fellay happily accepts?

"It would be equally desirable that an annex be inserted in an upcoming edition of the Missal [ordinary] the rite of penance and the offertory of usus antiquior, with the goal of emphasizing that the two liturgical forms enlighten each other, in continuity and without opposition."

This is revolutionary.

It's nothing of the sort, at least not for Bishop Fellay. The far better translation of the relevant passage at Rorate Caeli and in the SSPX newsletter reads as follows:

Quote
What do you think of Cardinal Sarah's suggestion of introducing the traditional offertory into the New Mass?

It is not a new idea; it has been around in Rome for ten years. I am glad it has been taken up again. Some criticize the idea, saying it is a way of mixing the profane with the sacred. On the contrary, in the perspective of bringing health back to the Church, I think it would be a great step forward, because the Offertory is a summary of the Catholic principles of the Mass, of the expiatory sacrifice offered to the Blessed Trinity, offered by the priest to God in reparation for sins, and accompanied by the faithful. And that would gradually bring the faithful back to the traditional Mass they have lost.

The most that can be said of this passage, especially its last sentence, is that +Fellay might be well advised to remove his rose-colored glasses. Of the remaining sentences, no. 1 is true; no. 2 is a debatable opinion (not one I share incidentally); no. 3 is true; no. 4 is half questionable opinion (through "great step forward"), half a statement of plain dogmatic fact; no. 5 is the rosy scenario again.

Matthew's gotcha quote is a statement by Cardinal Sarah. While its content and theology are utter rubbish—to that extent I am fully in agreement with my pointing and spluttering colleagues—it has been appended as a gloss to +Fellay's statement in such a way as seems calculated to deceive the reader into believing that +Fellay either explicitly endorsed Sarah's words or certainly would have done so had he been offered the chance.

In the absence of any directly supportive evidence for the charge, +Fellay may well be convicted of poor judgment (i.e., by those commenting on this thread), but he must be acquitted of sacrilegiously equating the conciliar "rite" with the Traditional liturgy. Even those who sincerely believe that he represents a grave danger to the Faith—indeed, especially those—owe him the courtesy of not condemning him on the basis of a calculated misrepresentation.

The Rorate caeli translation is practically identical. I don't see why it is "far better". Because they said "glad" instead of "happy" or "health" instead of "sanitation" or because they added a few "ands" that weren't in the original text. Whoopty doo.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #12 on:** July 02, 2015, 08:53:16 PM »

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Claudel's defense of Bishop Fellay, based on his far-better, nearly identical Rorate translation is that Bishop Fellay's statements are "debatable opinions".

Wow, he sure had the entire resistance fooled.

And who are you accusing of a calculated misrepresentation? What is misrepresented in his words in the text that I provided? Anybody who has ever taken the time to read the SSPXs publications in more than one language knows that the SSPX rarely translates their internet docuмents using exact and literal translations. But really, because they use a few different words that actually have the same exact meaning, now are you trying to say that I gave a calculated misrepresentation? Isn't that a rash judgement to say the least?

First Friday · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2015, 09:10:36 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

If you are looking for a liar, look elsewhere. By the way, did you sign up just to accuse me? I must have struck a nerve!

A little paranoid, and don't think yourself so important, I didn't sign up just to accuse you. How would I know 3 days ago you would make posts on this thread about this subject.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2015, 09:32:17 PM »

Quote from: First Friday

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

If you are looking for a liar, look elsewhere. By the way, did you sign up just to accuse me? I must have struck a nerve!

A little paranoid, and don't think yourself so important, I didn't sign up just to accuse you. How would I know 3 days ago you would make posts on this thread about this subject.

Fair enough. Beg your pardon!