BISHOP FELLAY’S DOUBLE SPEECH



While Bishop Fellay says one thing to the Vatican in its April statement, other official docuмents of the SSPX say the exact opposite. If to proceed with fold bending is absolutely unacceptable in the real Catholics, mostly in a bishop; maybe even worse is the willful blindness of many of our fellow priests, placed by God at the head of sheep to guide them and defend them; blindness that becomes in a undue tolerance for double and ambiguous character of the new style imposed by the Superior General to the fraternity. It seems incredible that many of them continue to say, against the glaringly obvious: "no agreement was signed and so nothing has changed in the SSPX. There is no internal crisis, as they want us to believe the evil administrators of some websites dedicated to spread rumors."


Two examples of this double speech:

A) DOUBLE SPEECH ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE MASS:

Bishop Fellay says Rome in its doctrinal statement of April 15, 2012:

7 We declare recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites shown in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

SSPX says:

The validity of the New Mass.


Being this so, we must say that the New Mass is invalid? This has not been proven, but it can be argued as follows: first, the New Mass is not qualified as a Catholic rite, and secondly, the celebrant must want to do what the Church does, however, the New Mass and does not guarantee itself to have that intention, which depend on your personal faith (usually unknown to the assistants, but is doubtful more or less, as the crisis develops in the Church). It can, therefore, be assumed that these masses are of doubtful validity, and even more so with the passage of time.

The words of consecration, especially wine, have been falsified. Has been respected "the substance of the sacraments" (...)? This problem is even greater in the Masses celebrated in vernacular, where pro multis [by many] has been mistranslated as for all men. Some argue that this fact is of such importance that invalids these Masses, many deny it. But this increases the doubt .


B) DOUBLE SPEECH ABOUT THE CODE OF CANON LAW:

Bishop Fellay says to Rome in its doctrinal statement of April 15, 2012:


8 Following the criteria referred above (III, 5), and the canon 21 of the Code, we pledge to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those that are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1983) and the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Christianity   Churches promulgated by the same Pontifff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline to be granted to the Society of St. Pius X by a special law.


SSPX says:

SHOULD WE ACCEPT THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW?


A code is a collection of laws, each one in order of the competent authority: every canon of the Code of 1917 was a law of Benedict XV, and every canon of the Code of 1983 (now commonly called "new code") is a law of John Paul II.
Now, for Pope John Paul II, the purpose of the new code is to express the new ecclesiology of Vatican II (ie, the new understanding that the Church has on its nature and mission) in canonical language and always to be understood on the light of the Council's teachings. But that council changed the Catholic teaching. Therefore, we must suspect that the new legislation codifies the same mistakes, and must be prepared not to accept all its "laws" (...), but only those that obviously do not compromise Catholic teaching on faith and moral. (...)
All of which leads us to conclude: "The Society of St. Pius X expresses his profound disagreement with the letter and spirit of this new Code, which includes the council views on the Church and the world. "


A priest of the SSPX

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/el-doble-discurso-de-monsenor-fellay.html

I would like to encourage untitled to continue trying to provide translated
messages from SSPX priests who gave them in another language.  Spanish
is no that distant for Americans but it's not too common to easily obtain a
really well-done translation of sensitive material.  

I suppose it's the same problem putting the sermons of Fr. Pfeiffer, for
example, into Spanish.