This three-part series delves into a pivotal yet troubling chapter in the history of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), focusing on Bishop Bernard Fellay's controversial relationship with Madame Rossiniere, a self-proclaimed mystic. Her significant influence on the bishop has stirred deep doctrinal concerns. Through meticulous analysis, we aim to expose the layers of this relationship and its ramifications on the Society's direction. Notably, this saga underscores the troubling elevation of prudence over faith—a misguided prioritization that deviates from the expected doctrinal rigidity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s sons. In light of Fellay's own imprudent engagements with unrecognized private revelations, we highlight the hypocrisy and inherent dangers that have surfaced following this false mystic interaction and how it very well may be the influence and birth of compromise for Fellay's doctrinal declaration. This examination begs the question for those on the fence about the compromise.

Sources for the Series: www.nonpossumus.com

• Monsignor Fellay and Madame Rossiniere: An Attempt of Agreement Between the FSSPX and Pseudo-Mysticism
• Madame Rossiniere, Monsignor Fellay, and the Declaration of June 28th
• The FSSPX and Madame Rossiniere: The Testimony of Father Grossin

Part I: "Monsignor Fellay and Madame Rossiniere: An Attempt of Agreement Between the FSSPX and Pseudo-Mysticism"
In the mid-1990s, an intriguing encounter took place that would later stir significant controversy within the Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX). Bishop Bernard Fellay, then Superior General of the FSSPX, was introduced to a Swiss woman, Germaine Cornaz, known under the pseudonym Madame Rossiniere. Claiming to be a mystic with divine insights, her interactions with Bishop Fellay and subsequent endorsements by him raised profound concerns regarding the influence of pseudo-mysticism on the Society's leadership.

Madame Rossiniere had compiled numerous spiritual writings between 1947 and 1969, which she claimed were inspired by the Holy Spirit. These writings were the foundation of a movement she founded called "The Homes of Christ the Priest." Father Lovey, who played a crucial role in introducing Rossiniere to Bishop Fellay, was reportedly convinced of her spiritual stature.

Bishop Fellay, influenced perhaps by his initial favorable impression and Rossiniere's assertions, praised her writings in Cor Unum, the Society's internal bulletin. He described them as aligning well with the Society’s mission and the broader struggle for tradition within the Church. This endorsement was not just a mere acknowledgment but an enthusiastic affirmation of the supposed authenticity of her revelations.

The situation escalated when Bishop Fellay encouraged the broader FSSPX community to engage with Rossiniere’s works and integrate them into their spiritual practices. This directive was communicated through various official publications and announcements, urging families and members of the Society to align themselves with Rossiniere’s mission, which he believed could significantly contribute to the sanctification of priests within the Society.

However, the authenticity of Rossiniere's mystic persona came under scrutiny when two priests, Fathers Ortiz and Joly, decided to investigate her more closely. Their unexpected visit to her residence revealed a scene that contradicted her purported saintly life: Rossiniere appeared in casual attire, smoking and watching television, which conflicted with the holy image she projected in her writings.

This discovery led to significant embarrassment for Bishop Fellay and raised questions about his judgment in endorsing such a controversial figure. Despite the initial reprimand and temporary dismissal of Father Lovey, who had facilitated Fellay’s introduction to Rossiniere, he was soon reinstated, indicating ongoing complexities within the Society’s handling of the affair.

The repercussions of this episode extended beyond mere personal embarrassment for Bishop Fellay. It highlighted the risks of integrating private revelations without thorough scrutiny and the broader implications for the Society’s mission and integrity. This case serves as a stark reminder of the necessity for vigilance and discernment within religious communities, especially those dedicated to preserving traditional Catholicism against modernist influences.

This narrative sets the stage for a deeper exploration into how private revelations and claimed mystical experiences have influenced leadership decisions within the now conciliar SSPX, a topic we will continue to explore in the subsequent articles of this series. Stay tuned as we delve further into the impact of these events on the Society’s mission and its stance within the Conciliar Church.


-The☩Trumpet

PART II Coming soon...

While I don't believe her private revelations are legit, does wearing casual attire, smoking, and watching television disqualify someone from sanctity?  Do saints levitate through the world?  Perhaps it would depend on what she was watching on television, but casual attire and smoking?

Noted and edited. Wearing casual attire or engaging in some worldly activities does not inherently disqualify someone from sanctity. My reference was to the portrayal by the author of the source article, who highlighted these details perhaps to question the contrast between her claimed spiritual role and her mundane activities.

Edited:"However, this unbelievable superchery was discovered by two priests, Fathers Ortiz and Joly who, without warning the 'prophetess', visited her and found her with astonishment in a very disconcerting position for a holy soul privileged to deal with Heaven: she was, in fact, 'piously' installed in jeans, cigarette in her mouth, before her lighted television set (history does not tell us which program she was watching)"【source: Non Possumus】

While I don't believe her private revelations are legit, does wearing casual attire, smoking, and watching television disqualify someone from sanctity?  Do saints levitate through the world?  Perhaps it would depend on what she was watching on television, but casual attire and smoking?

I wonder which Saints would have watched TV if it was available. Or maybe we would have had less Saints because of TV. 

While I don't believe her private revelations are legit, does wearing casual attire, smoking, and watching television disqualify someone from sanctity?

.

Yes, of course.

Also, there's no evidence this woman was holy to begin with, and the burden of proof is on her or her supporters if they want people to think she possessed sanctity. What evidence is there that she was holy?

Also, there's no evidence this woman was holy to begin with ...

Well, yes, there's that ... but I don't think wearing jeans (with nobody around), smoking (St. Pius X did snuff), and watching TV (depending on what was on) necessarily militate against sanctity, nor is sanctity per se required for someome to receive a legitimate private revelation (although there is a strong correlation vis-a-vis the credibility of the message).

I think this whole article is a little harsh, though. So Bp. Fellay was deceived by this fake mystic, but he dropped her like a hot brick as soon as she was exposed. It's something that should never have happened, and probably wouldn't have happened if he had maintained Catholic principles regarding private revelations, but I don't think it's very fair to keep bringing this up after 30 years or so.

There are lots of people on this forum that violate the same rules of prudence by giving "mystic" status to people whose revelations have never been approved by the Church, such as Marie Julie Jahenny or Alois Irlmaier or similar characters. If we're going to keep hanging Bp. Fellay for this one for 30 years, then we have to do the same for people who go after these other unproved "mystics".

Yes, the article is a little harsh. But that's Fr. Hewko for you. Criticizing other trads seems to be what he (and his followers) are all about. And little else.

Though I must also say that the fact that Bp. Fellay was taken in by this false mystic is troubling. If he can think that Madame Rossiniere's method for saving the Church is a good thing, then what other nutty things can he be capable of thinking? If you've read the details of what Rossiniere's "Christ-priest" method of saving the Church, you might be appalled. I certainly was when I read though it.

It's contrary to the mind of the Church to test theological principles from private revelation.  We test private revelation based on theological principles.

Could you re-phrase that? I'm not really understanding what you mean. Thanks.