The last issue of Le Sel de la terre published Father Dominique Rousseau's review of Bishop Fellay's book "For the Love of the Church." We reproduce it with the kind permission of its editor.

Source: Sel de la terre n°110 [Quarterly journal of the Dominicans of Avrille - SJ]


On May 20, 2019, the day on which Bishop Emeritus of Chur, Bishop Huonder, was officially welcomed into a school of the Society of Saint Pius X in Wangs, Switzerland, a book by the former Superior General of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, was published from the press. "For the love of the Church," a noble program if ever there was one. We are indeed children of the Church, "in the midst of this storm that is shaking the Church from top to bottom," according to the so accurate expression of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre (December 8, 1984).

Some reviews have already been made of this book. Having acquired this book from the FNAC in Paris the day before I left the Fraternity (June 6), here are some notes. They will be significantly different from those available on the Catholic Forum [an SSPX-leaning French forum -SJ] or on the Fraternity's official website.

The reviews made on the sites I have just identified are partial and biased. The Catholic Forum praises the former Superior General for his benevolent inclination towards the "late" Ecclesia Dei societies. The FSSPX website hides this bias by hiding it.

First of all, the new Code of Canon Law (1983), which Bishop Lefebvre said was unacceptable, was highlighted from the very beginning of the work. The FSSPX Constitution speaks of "living together without vows". Bishop Fellay takes the new meaning to describe the Fraternity of Saint Pius X: "a Society of apostolic life".

Let us listen here to Bishop Lefebvre's harsh judgment on the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

"As ecclesiastical authority loses sight of its true purpose, it necessarily takes the path of abuse of power and arbitrariness. The promulgations of laws are dubious, falsified. This canon law is unacceptable. There is no new ecclesiology in the Church. Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law, just as we keep Tradition to judge also the new liturgical books." (Conference in Ecône, March 14, 1983) "Why, in my opinion, is it impossible for us to accept as a whole the canon law as it has been published? Because it is precisely in line with Vatican II." (Conference in Ecône, March 15, 1983) "The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is not to "follow the 1983 Code in the spirit of the 1917 Code" but to reject the questionable 1983 Code as a code. To accept its legitimacy would be to recognize the validity of the legislator's intention, to submit to conciliar reform. To claim to follow the 1983 code with a different spirit than that of the Council would be a utopia. Might as well cut the sheets in the direction of thickness! The spirit of a law is carried by its letter, and if it can be distinguished from it it cannot be separated from it. The law only orders acts and it is the repetition of these acts that produces a spirit. "(Abbot Etienne de Blois, May 2017, Le Petit Eudiste - Prieuré Saint-Jean Eudes, Gavrus)

Bishop Fellay shows great benevolence towards the Roman authorities (p. 24, 27); his gaze is turned towards the communities rallied to modernist Rome since the episcopal consecrations of 1988 (p. 11, 31, 85, 147). We must join forces and not "stay in the corner" (p. 31). This expression is reminiscent of the expression used by Father Paul Aulagnier in 2001, "ghettos". This is the reason why he was ousted from the Fraternity, wanting at all costs agreements and canonical recognition. In fact, it was only a matter of time.... Bishop Fellay says it well, on page 31, almost repeating it, that the Fraternity's progress towards Rome is taking place in stages. This was agreed in 2014:

"The parties, who have examined certain doctrinal and canonical questions, have agreed to proceed in stages but within a reasonable time frame towards overcoming the difficulties. And this in the desired perspective of full reconciliation. "(Vatican City, 23 September 2014 (VIS) following the meeting of the FSSPX General Council with Bishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Bishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, and Bishop Guido Pozzo)

With regard to Vatican II, the book does not give a firm position (p. 38, 39). Broad views are given on the Council but one could have expected a new "I accuse the Council", in imitation of Bishop Lefebvre's book in 1976. If it rejects the Second Vatican Council, it is only a prudential (p. 26) and not a radical refusal.

The former Superior General is very strict about the "rigid priests" (p. 55) and regarding Bishop Williamson. Contempt and mockery, this is the Bishop's response to priests who have suffered too much from silence instead of precise answers to their legitimate questions since at least 2012, the stormy year within the Fraternity.

Williamson's consecrations are considered "unreasonable, which lose contact with reality. The position he takes is indefensible." (p. 144). Dato non concesso (I record this statement without conceding it). He advances this judgment without proof. A confrere wrote to me following my departure from the Fraternity: "You are leaving for illegitimate bishops." Why, how? I replied that the bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson were no more or less illegitimate than those to be consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre. Simply Catholic, as much as in 1988. We are still in a state of grave necessity - if not worse - and the Society of Saint Pius X in its hierarchy is wandering seriously on points of doctrine (jurisdiction for confession, delegation for marriages), the apostolic succession must be pursued in the same state of mind, the causes having not changed since 1988.

Bishop Fellay praises (p. 43) "Veritatis splendor" (John Paul II, 06/08/1993): "The encyclical "Veritatis splendor" shows very well that morality is objective. "On the contrary, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais had written (Supplement to Cor unum 47, March 1994, 60 pages) a detailed study on this encyclical, with serious reservations, which Bishop Fellay does not do. Let us therefore remember Bishop Tissier's judgment (p. 53): "We had to identify certain contradictions, confusions, gaps, deviations and ambiguities. "The two bishops, who were consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, differ in their appreciation of the encyclical on one serious point: morality.

Bishop Fellay recalls the truth about marriage but misses a great opportunity to condemn "Amoris lætitia" (p. 119). With regard to confessions and marriages, everything is going "in the right direction", he says (pp. 144-145). Nothing is said about the already numerous analyses that the priests of the Fraternity or of friendly communities have carried out.

Canonical recognition is no more than a matter of a "stamp", said the prelate in an interview with Mr. J.P. Maugendre on TV Libertés a few years ago. Now, Bishop Fellay tells us that Benedict XVI would have gladly recognized the Society of Saint Pius X and raised it as a Prelature, but Masonic power is very strong and present in the Vatican, hence the absence of a "buffer". But is this really necessary, since the "levels" are set as milestones... !

On the formation of priests (p. 9, 52), the statements lack vigour. If spiritual life is considered, the firmness of doctrine and the fight against modern errors does not appear, or at least not sufficiently. Father Le Floch at the French Seminary in Rome had as his motto: "Pietas cuм doctrina, doctrina cuм pietate".

Of course, there are deep pages on Marian spirituality, on the saints to know and imitate, the angels to invoke, the virtues to practice (pp. 69, 91-118).

What will remain in the reader's memory will be Bishop Fellay's admission in relation to Pope Francis (p. 30, 149): "The Pope is extremely human. (...) This pope knows us well enough to say that we are Catholics. "The problem is that the Pope thinks and acts as an enemy of Catholicism... Whether we are Catholics, we have never doubted it. On the other hand, let Pope Francis be a Catholic... he professes heresies. The current Superior General recently wrote:"... The Docuмent on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Common Coexistence, signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, is only a house built on sand. It is also an ungodliness that despises God's first commandment, and makes the Wisdom of God, incarnated in Jesus Christ who died for us on the Cross, say that "the pluralism and diversity of religions" is "willed by God."

Such statements are in opposition to the dogma that the Catholic religion is the only true religion (cf. Syllabus, proposal 21). If it is a dogma, what is opposed to it is called heresy. God cannot contradict himself. (...)" (Abbot Pagliarani, February 24, 2019)

We must conclude. This book is the result of twenty years of contacts with conciliar and modernist Rome, from which Bishop Lefebvre has repeatedly warned us that we must be wary and keep our distance. This has not been done. Indeed, Bishop Fellay has not been careful since the jubilee of the year 2000. He states on page 24: "From the year 2000 and our great pilgrimage to Rome, relations have calmed down. "At what price... the price of a wounded, damaged Tradition, many helpless faithful, priests living in the Fraternity to do, they hope, some good from within and not daring to leave.

On the eve of his death, the Founder of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X had left what can be considered his Novissima verba. These words are recorded in Fideliter magazine:

FIDELITER - What can you say to those of the faithful who are still hoping for the possibility of an arrangement with Rome?

Monsignor - Our true faithful, those who understood the problem and who helped us to pursue the straight and firm line of Tradition and faith, feared the steps I took in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that in Rome they would show a little bit of loyalty. I can't be blamed for not doing the best I can. So now, to those who come to tell me: you have to get along with Rome, I think I can say that I have gone further than I should have gone.

(Exclusive interview with Mgr Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n° 79 of January-February 1991)

Let us not forget also what the Bishop wrote in his Spiritual Journey (1990):

"The will of Vatican II to integrate non-Catholics as they are into the Church is an adulterous and scandalous will. The Secretariat for Christian Unity through mutual concessions - dialogue - leads to the destruction of the Catholic faith, the destruction of the Catholic priesthood, the elimination of the power of Peter and the bishops, the missionary spirit of the apostles, martyrs and saints, is eliminated; As long as this Secretariat keeps false ecuмenism as its orientation and the Roman and ecclesiastical authorities approve it, it can be affirmed that they will remain in open and official rupture with the whole past of the Church and with its official Magisterium. It is therefore a strict duty for any priest who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not recover the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and the Catholic faith." (p. 29)
What has not been done with the Archbishop's precious teachings, which would have avoided such a mess in the Tradition for years... !

For a person who converts and comes to Tradition, who wants to lead the good fight of the Faith, I advise against reading this book. They would learn relativism within the "traditional" communities, would even be dazzled - a lark mirror - by the varied colors found there: "For me, all those who work in the Church with humility in favor of her Tradition are working in the right direction." (p. 85) How far away we are from the words written by Archbishop Lefebvre, describing for example the masses celebrated by the priests of communities rallied in Rome as scams! (see below the letter from the Bishop to Father Daniel Couture).

Fortunately, there are good works, all those of Bishop Lefebvre among others. They are so much more nourishing than Bishop Fellay's!

Review for the Salt of the Earth,
Father Dominique Rousseau, August 8, 2019
On the feast of the Holy Curé of Ars


Appendix :
Saint Michel en Brenne, March 18, 1989
Dear Father Couture,

To your good letter, received yesterday in Saint Michael, I answer immediately to tell you what I think about these priests who receive a "celebret" from the Roman Commission, responsible for dividing and destroying us.

It is obvious that by placing themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities, they implicitly admit the Council and the Answers that emerged from it, even if they receive privileges that remain exceptional and provisional. Their word is paralyzed by this acceptance. The Bishops are watching them!.....

It is very unfortunate that these priests do not become aware of this reality. But we cannot deceive the faithful.

The same is true for these "traditional masses...!" organized by the conciliarists. They are celebrated between two conciliar masses. The celebrant priest says both the new and the old. How and by whom is Holy Communion distributed? What will be the preaching? etc.

These masses are scams who lead the faithful into compromise!

Many have already been abandoned. What they need to change is their liberal and modernist doctrine. We must be patient and pray. The time of God will come.

May God grant you holy Easter holidays.

Sincerely in Christo and Maria

+Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Any book by Saintly Bishop Bernard Fellay, worthy Successor to Saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, would be worth reading for sure:

From: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-love-church-48243
JUNE 02, 2019
SOURCE: FSSPX.NEWS

Bishop Bernard Fellay has published with Via Romana a book of interviews that he gave to Robert Landers, a lay faithful who came to interview him in Menzingen in 2016.

The work introduces the Society of Saint Pius X, the origins of its founding in 1970, and the role that it plays in the heart of the Catholic Church. Far from clichés and caricatures, it sketches a portrait of the noble figure of its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man of faith, passionately missionary who knew how to react to the revolution in the Church.

In eight chapters, the man who was the Superior General of the Society for 24 years concentrates on the vital role of the transmission of the Faith, the safeguarding of the priesthood, the centrality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its unchanged rite, carrier of grace and sanctity. He emphasizes the importance of the catechism, prayer, the sacraments, and the sensus catolicus which finds its source in Christ’s sacrifice.

Bishop Fellay also talks about the functioning of a seminary, the apostolate of priests, the beauty of religion when it is lived with the spirit of Our Lord.

But he also warns his readers against the dangers of the world, especially this false freedom which is commonly presented as an individual emancipation to the detriment of the true, the good, and the beautiful, ignoring original sin and its consequences in human nature.

He does not dodge questions concerning the erroneous novelties spread by the handful since the Second Vatican Council, e.g., the Assisi meetings which caused confusion by putting on the same level, firstly, the true God with idols; and, secondly, the Vicar of Christ, representative of the one Church, beside the representatives of the worst sects who have fallen into schism or heresy. In moral matters, he emphasizes the tragedy of our times, in particular the Synod on the Family which has altered the very foundations of the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. Higher than the law of men, that of God does not change.

Conducted two years before the end of his term, the interview was an opportunity for Bishop Fellay to take stock of the situation of the Church, in demonstrating the vitality of Tradition and his providential role in restoring all things in Christ.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, "Pour l’amour de l’Eglise, entretiens avec Robert Landers", Via Romana, 2019, 152 pages. 

Available from the site Via Romana.

It's interesting to see the above writing of Archbishop Lefebvre from 1989, a little less than a year after the 1988 episcopal consecrations. It's obvious, from the above, that the SSPX has veered very much away from the thought of +ABL.

Why Meg, whatever are you talking about??

Xavier assures us nothing has changed!

The Pachamama Pope wants Tradition to spread in the Church, says Bishop Fellay, and  the “saintly” Bishop Fellay assures is it is not a trap!  “Rome wants to do good to us” he said in Australia.

You troublesome resistance folk are just making it all up!

Circuмstances have changed, so our position must change!

I mean, uh, we have t changed a bit!

Um, but we can’t be 1988ers anymore.

Um, but still, we will convert Tome from within!

Why, just look at how much we have, et, Rome has converted to Tradition in the last 10 years!

We will even be able to worship Pachamama in Latin, and facing her altar!

Things weren't perfect in 1979, when +ABL wrote this, "As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical. I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition. I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria". They aren't perfect today some 40 years later. Yet, it is always legitimate to work within the Church with full canonical normalization.

The Holy Bible itself teaches us this, as Bp. Fellay excellently explained in a letter, "To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II. ...When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church. You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months ... has been hard for us ... We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society. May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you"

Those who condemn the Society also condemn its founder, who negotiated with Rome almost all his life. They follow "Je ne regrette rien" Cekada and the dissident Nine who said, "we resist you (+ABL) to your face" (for negotiating with Rome). See http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf "Had we priests not fought Abp. Lefebvre in 1983, we would have fought him in 1988, though from a position far less advantageous for our people in the long run. So, sad though it was for us priests to battle a virtuous prelate, sadder still would it have been for us to surrender on the principles — to abandon our flocks to the risk of invalid sacraments and eventual union with a church which the archbishop himself had said, “begins in heresy and ends in heresy.” With such, there can be no compromise. And for fighting a battle over that with Abp. Lefebvre, Non, je ne regrette rien — No, I don’t regret a thing"

...as Bp. Fellay excellently explained in a letter, "To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II. ...When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church. You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months ... has been hard for us ... We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society. May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you"

This quote shows quite clearly that Bp. Fellay is either a very very evil man or a very naive man. There is no other explanation.
I believe that he has no prudency to be even a prior, let alone superior general.
The worst is that he uses his power to impose his vision. He turned the SSPX Superior General into a dictator, and Fr. Pagliarani is acting the same way.
I am young and I started attending SSPX masses in 2014, so I cannot see the bigger picture, but I doubt very much that the way that the SSPX is commanded today has any resemblance to how religious orders were commanded before Vatican 2.
Blind obedience made priests accept Vatican 2 and the new mass. Blind obedience makes priests accept a dictator general.
If we can question even the pope, how can we not question a mere superior general? It makes no sense.

It's not that it's not a big deal, that's why the Superior General called for the Mass of Reparation, and the sung Litany of the Saints etc. It's that the SSPX can work more effectively in future doctrinal discussions etc once its canonical status becomes indisputable. The two are separate things. The SSPX is certainly going to attack the modernists on their idolatry etc if doctrinal discussions begin again. 

I believe that he has no prudency to be even a prior, let alone superior general.

Ok, then all you have do is over-rule the votes of some 650 Priests and 3 Bishops, who chose him to be Superior General for 24 years.

One can disagree with authority on a few matters respectfully. One cannot overthrow authority, otherwise one is left with private judgment, protestantism and sectarianism. "I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out." http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/long_island_conference_1983.htm

This quote shows quite clearly that Bp. Fellay is either a very very evil man or a very naive man. There is no other explanation.
I believe that he has no prudency to be even a prior, let alone superior general.
The worst is that he uses his power to impose his vision. He turned the SSPX Superior General into a dictator, and Fr. Pagliarani is acting the same way.
I am young and I started attending SSPX masses in 2014, so I cannot see the bigger picture, but I doubt very much that the way that the SSPX is commanded today has any resemblance to how religious orders were commanded before Vatican 2.
Blind obedience made priests accept Vatican 2 and the new mass. Blind obedience makes priests accept a dictator general.
If we can question even the pope, how can we not question a mere superior general? It makes no sense.

A good assessment of the situation.

As you say above...."if we can question even the Pope, how can we not question a mere superior general? It makes no sense."

I agree as well that blind obedience makes priests accept a dictator general.