At a time, we held that TRADITIO should be admonished for being uncharitable to SSPX.
Now we are starting to notice the troubles in the most-prominent Traditional organization.
But a problem arose: some have only SSPX and Indult nearby as they live in the world without Resistance.
Can we still attend SSPX safely?

First things first.

Where is this article published other than on Traditio?  I need confirmation that what Traditio has published here was actually written by this Conciliar bishop and published somewhere other than just the Traditio website.

We can discuss other aspects of this after we know its veracity.

In all fairness, you have no evidence that the SSPX will start to say the vernacular mass.

I am going to note here that the same thing was said about the FSSP when it was formed.  Today, while FSSP priests don't normally say the Mass in the vernacular or celebrate the Novus Ordo, many of them do, on occasion, participate in the Novus Ordo, concelebrate the Novus Ordo, etc.  

I have seen it with my own eyes.  Years ago, the FSSP superior was replaced by the Vatican specifically over the issue whether the priests could participate in non-traditional rites.

So, quite frankly, while we don't have evidence that anything is imminent, if this story is confirmed, we have evidence that it has been seriously discussed as a possibility.

I guess we have confirmation.

First things first.

Where is this article published other than on Traditio?  I need confirmation that what Traditio has published here was actually written by this Conciliar bishop and published somewhere other than just the Traditio website.

We can discuss other aspects of this after we know its veracity.

http://www.sacrificium.org/article/when-two-bishops-agree-hang-something-02-march-2014

When two Bishops Agree, Hang On to Something! (02 March 2014).

Editorial
By Fr. P. Girouard, Old SSPX

 
The faces of two Bishops smiling at you, what a wonderful way to start your day, isn’t it? Maybe it is, when you haven’t had your first cup of coffee yet, and when your mind is still slow and foggy. But a closer look at those episcopal faces would probably wake you up quicker than coffee, and send a shudder down your spine! You would you ask yourself: What the heck? What’s going on? What’s the big joke? Who is the one on the left?

 I ought to answer that last question right now, so that you will all know whom we are dealing with here: Bishop Peter John Elliott was born an Anglican in 1943 in Melbourne, Australia. In the 1960’s he was received into the Catholic Church while studying at the University of Oxford. Back in Melbourne in 1969, he studied for the priesthood and was ordained a priest in 1973. He became Doctor in Theology in Rome in 1986, and was consecrated Bishop in 2007. He is currently Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne and a member of the Bishops’ Commission for Liturgy. (For a more complete biography, click HERE). We all know Bishop Fellay, so I won’t bother with a biography. Now, back to your other question: “What’s the big joke?”

 

Well, no, my dear readers, this is not a joke! Indeed, these two bishops know each other, and they do have something in common, at least according to Bishop Elliott. So what do they share? They both AGREE with one another about the way to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! Wow! Maybe you will say that this is a wonderful piece of news, as it surely means the Novus Ordo Bishop has converted and joined Tradition, like the late Bishop Lazo did in the Philippines! But, no, my dear readers, it’s rather the other way around! Well, maybe not completely yet, but it is another step in that direction… Indeed, Bishop Elliott claimed, on February 24th last, that Bishop Fellay, (or one of his priests, in his presence, it is not clear), told him that the Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular! Here are the words of Bishop Elliott:

 

“Let us be realistic. If you want the Extraordinary Form to become the Ordinary Form, reflect on the millions of people who come to vernacular Masses in our parishes around the world, in many countries and cultures. Would they easily embrace a Latin Low Mass with a server answering? And let us not forget the priests. This is why some pastoral realism is required. But let me put out a challenge - a reform of the Extraordinary Form would first be required - and I note that this has been suggested in terms of the Vatican Council’s ‘full, active and conscious participation.’ (…) In the context of the wider Church another issue inevitably emerges: could the Extraordinary Form be said or sung in the vernacular? Several years ago I was surprised to hear this proposed during dialogue over lunch with Bishop Fellay and Australian priests of the Society of St Pius X. (The emphasis is mine). (For the full version of the article, click HERE).

 

Now, if Bishop Fellay really said that, or if he didn’t oppose such a proposal by one of his priests, it gives us another proof of how far he had already gone on the path of liberalism a few years ago! Indeed, the Council of Trent, fighting against Protestant innovations, forbade the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular and asked that the old liturgical tradition be kept (Session 22, Chapter 8). Based on this and other docuмents of subsequent Popes, the Code of Canon Law (the real one, of 1917) states that the sacrifice of the Mass must be celebrated in the language of its rite as approved by the Church (Canon 819). And it just so happens that, up to Vatican II, the language of the Latin Rite was, of course, Latin! So now we learn that Bishop Fellay is allegedly in favour of going against the traditional liturgical practice of the Church! This is HUGE!

 

Of course, we would like to know WHEN such a proposal was made. Bishop Elliott says it was “several years ago”. Well, we might – repeat might – have a precision about that. Indeed, it just so happens that, as I was writing this article, my dear and distinguished confrere, Rev. Fr. Juan Ortiz, sent me a link to an article written by Mr. Anthony Barich in 2009 for “The Record”, and that says: “Melbourne Auxiliary Bishop Peter Elliott, who has a Lefebvrist parish in his region and attended a Rosary and dinner with Pius X Society (sic) priests at St Agatha’s Church, Cranboune, Victoria (a Novus Ordo parish. Note from sacrificium) on October 29, said socialization with the traditionalist group is the key to unity. (…) Bishop Elliott, who had a private meeting with Society of St Pius X superior general Bishop Bernard Fellay in August, said the key to unity with Levebvrists is for the entire Church to ‘reflect on understanding tradition as a living dynamic process, but always based on the foundations of the past teachings of Popes and councils’. At the private meeting, held at the Society’s base at Tynong, Victoria, Bishop Elliott said he pointed out to Bishop Fellay that (…) ‘By contrast, the hermeneutic of rupture presents the Council and any changes that followed it as a radical break with the past and the beginning of more breaks with the past (…) But Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger argued that this is a false interpretation of the Council; and I think that this interpretation has to go’.” (For the complete article click HERE). Does that mean Bishop Fellay, or one of his priests, made his proposal of a vernacular celebration of the Traditional Mass in August 2009? I cannot say for sure, but it would fit with what Bishop Elliott said himself last week.

 

I quoted a bit extensively Mr. Barich’s article because it reveals that what Bishop Elliott said to Bishop Fellay in August 2009 had a great impact on the General Superior of the Society. Indeed, what I underlined from that article seems to have inspired Bishop Fellay when he wrote his April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, for instance when he said: “The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit -  certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated” (Par. 4). Bishop Elliott seems also to have influenced Bishop Fellay when he said the following on May 11th, 2012, in his CNS interview: “Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding. And now we have Authorities in Rome who say it. We, I may say in the discussions (between the SSPX and Rome, 2009-2011. Note from sacrificium), I think we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council. But the common understanding of it… Religious liberty is used in so many ways and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council said about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. Very limited.” (To watch the video where he said this, click HERE).

 

My dear readers, I think we have here another example of the danger you put yourself in when you start frequenting the Novus Ordo hierarchy. They will meet with you, even eat with you, and the nicer they are the quicker you are going to say to yourself: “Well, they are not so bad after all! They are quite friendly and quite open to Tradition! They are against the abuses! Maybe we misjudged them! Maybe we were too rigid! How can we expect them to change if we don’t give them some signs of good will? And maybe we didn’t really understand the Council!” Next thing you know, you are going to love being received as a friend by Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes, and you will want this to continue. And it is only a matter of time before you propose (or do not oppose the proposition) to celebrate the Old Mass in the vernacular, and before you write and say things that sound just like what they had told you! The next step of course will be to smash anything and anybody who stands in the way of your “recognition” by the same hierarchy.

 

This is what happens when you get too close to those infected by pestilence: You get accustomed to the smell, you forget the danger, and you get infected too! So my dear readers: Beware! Don’t risk catching what Bishop Fellay and his Neo-SSPX have been infected with: The pestilence of Liberalism!
Fr. Patrick Girouard

    Français

To clarify, I've written about this before.
SSPX Low Mass in much of S. America = dialogue.   It can also include women in the pew given the bells to ring when there is no server (even if men are present).
Readings are most always in the vernacular.  

No kidding, no exaggeration.

All it takes is for the same thing to happen again and again, without any opposition, and before you realize what has happened, you have a new "tradition."  

This was creeping into churches in the 15th century, such that by the time the 16th century was halfway through, Pope St. Pius V had to put a stop to it lest it overrun all the traditions from longstanding origin or Apostolic times.  This he did with Quo Primum, the Papal Bull that stood up to the Modernists for the subsequent 400 years, and which saved the Church from ruin.  

If it had not been for Quo Primum at that time, we would have NO MASS today.  

We can know this is true because it has only been since 1962 with the new Missal of John XXIII when they removed Quo Primum from its prominent position of the having been the first thing you see when you open the front cover of the missal, and start to turn pages.  It came before the title page and before the "frontispiece." But starting with the missal of John XXIII in 1962, many editions had no Quo Primum.  And see how much destruction has occurred in a few short years.  Within 10 years of Quo Primum's removal, we had a NEW MASS taking the place of the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass.

And now, we have one Bishop Fellay, smashing anything and anybody who stands in the way of his “recognition” by the same hierarchy that's bent on destroying Catholic Tradition.  Of course, all the while they destroy it, they lie, and say they're not destroying it.  

Do you believe them?  Do you believe Bishop Fellay, too?  



.

Quote from: soulguard

In all fairness, you have no evidence that the SSPX will start to say the vernacular mass.

So, quite frankly, while we don't have evidence that anything is imminent, if this story is confirmed, we have evidence that it has been seriously discussed as a possibility.

And if it's discussed as a possibility, then there is a willingness to go that way. And if there is a willingness, then it has already happened in their minds, they have already "converted".

A few years ago the SSPX tried introducing the dialogue Mass in a certain parish. When asked about the reason, they just answered : "Because it's done in France". Their willingness to change is enough evidence for some to see the writing on the wall.

I could never understand why in these confusing times anyone would want to change, just for the sake of changing. That is where it all started in the days of VII. Especially the SSPX superiors should have more sense, they have seen it all before and are doing it themselves now !?

When I was a child at Catholic school before Vatican II, we always responded to the priest. In fact, I have always wondered why we don't.

In  Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, OSB, Daily Missal (1927) pp. xxxiii-xxxiv, we find this in regard to Dialogue Mass;

    "As this practice might be in some circuмstances be unsuitable, it is ordered by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in [August 4th] 1922 that it should not be introduced in all times and places without discretion, and in all cases rests with the Ordinary, as the sole judge of local conditions, to decide upon its introduction into each diocese. This judicious restriction, however, as we learn from a report presented in 1923 at the Eucharistic Congress held at Rome, was in no sense a condemnation. On the contrary, this method of celebrating, already recommended by his Eminence the Cardinal Vicar Pompii for the diocese of Rome, was practiced by His Holiness Pope Pius XI, himself in the course of the General Congress of 1922."

According to the history of the Church, people responding to the priest was practiced from the earliest times and eventually suppressed. In my experience, it never diminished the love that I or any of my little classmates had for the Mass, on the contrary.

If indeed the "French" dictate the rubrics, then why in the largest congregation of SSPX traditionals in the US has there been nothing but Latin, and no dialogue Masses? St. Mary's has been under the French both in the persons of Archbishop Lefebvre as Superior General, Fr. Laisnay, as District Superior and Fr. de la Tour, as Rector, but at no time were the faithful witnesses to dialogue Masses except once, when very pious French priests dared to do it while giving a retreat in St. Mary's for women many years ago. They were roundly taken to task for it by some very poorly formed and informed retreatants.

Much of this thread is based on gossip with absolutely no proof but only hearsay. Not good enough.