Bishop Fellay was “caught” speaking out both sides of his mouth again when he spoke to Cardinal Canizares in saying:  

“On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, ‘We just came from an abbey that is near Florence.  If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did’… The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form, the cardinal added.”  

You can find more on this at:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Fellay-reported-to-have-accepted-the-New-Mass

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Cardinal-If-Lefebvre-Had-Seen-Proper-Novus-Ordo-Mass

Here is the original sspx.org “damage piece”:
http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm

Apparently, the damage was done, and the “re-control” of things didn’t come about as planned.  So now, sspx.org is putting out another “damage control”; this time, more on the control part.  Entitled: “What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass...in the beginning”.  http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/what_archbishop_lefebvre_said_about_the_new_mass-in_the_beginning_1-22-2013.htm

I find the contents of this new article very interesting.  

First, by hanging on to the subject, implying, that more “clarification” is needed.

Second, that they are putting an “ambiguous spin” on the topic (again).

Third, to make Bishop Fellay “look good”.

Fourth, that they are “re-directing” the topic into a “re-education” piece –a “picking and choosing” of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words to make him -“sound favorable” and “lenient”- to the new orientation of NSSPX-ROME  accord; while at the same time, giving the “hard-core traditionalists” a little cookie now and then.

Little by little, more “injection and poison” when they can.  Read the article carefully…

I guess as the saying goes for the modern world: “If you can’t fight them –join them.”

The new article follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass...in the beginning   

1-22-2013

We present here some excerpts from the book Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography which outline the first reactions of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the Novus Ordo Missae and how he was compelled to eventually oppose assisting at the New Mass.

________________________________________
For the Catholic Priesthood; chapter 16 (pgs 416-417)

A problem: assisting at the New Mass

Since Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the New Mass, he would not have it in the seminary. On the eve of the first Sunday of Advent 1969 when the Novus Ordo Missae came into force in the diocese of Fribourg ,the Archbishop simply said: “We’ll keep the old Mass, eh?” Everyone agreed...
(...)

It is true that prudence might suggest to this or that priest “not to refuse the new Ordo for fear of scandalizing the faithful” by their witnessing his apparent disobedience to the bishop.[40] Such a priest should, however, “keep the Roman Canon which is still permitted, and say the words of consecration in a low voice according to the old form, which is still allowed.”[41] When Archbishop Lefebvre was absent on a Sunday, the seminarians would go and assist at Mass together at the Bernadine convent of La Maigrauge where an old monk celebrated the New Mass in Latin. The Archbishop was not a man to rush souls. He allowed himself time to seethe fruits more clearly in order to pass better judgment on the tree. He also wanted to hear the opinions of his colleagues in the episcopate, and find a consensus among his friends.

His friend Bishop de Castro Mayer found himself with a very painful problem of conscience with respect to his priests:

Can we, the bishops, be silent? Can we, pastors of souls, follow a via media, saying nothing and leaving each priest to follow his conscience as he wishes at such risk to so many souls? And if we say openly what we think, what will be the consequences? We will be removed... leaving many of the faithful in confusion and scandalizing the weakest souls.[42]

In January 1970 the Bishop of Campos had already solved his doubts. He translated the Short Critical Study and distributed it among his priests.

It seems to me preferable that scandal be given rather than a situation be maintained in which one slides into heresy. After considerable thought on the matter, I am convinced that one cannot take part in the New Mass, and even just to be present one must have a serious reason. We cannot collaborate in spreading a rite which, even if it is not heretical, leads to heresy. This is the rule I am giving my friends.[43]

At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position was not quite as categorical. He considered that the New Mass was not heretical, but as Cardinal Ottaviani had said, it represents serious dangers; thus in the course of time, “Protestant ideas concerning the Supper would be unconsciously accepted by the Catholics.” This was why children had to be taught the fundamental notions about the Mass. However, “it is an exaggeration to say that most of these Masses are invalid.” One should not hesitate to go a little further to have Mass according to the Roman Ordo; but [emphasis mine] “if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”[44]

Footnotes
40 Spiritual Conference, Fribourg, Nov. 9, 1969.
41 Letter to a young priest, Sierre, Feb. 16, 1970.
42 Bishop de Castro Mayer, Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Oct. 5, 1969.
43 Letter of Jan. 29, 1970, to Archbishop Lefebvre. Unfortunately, Bishop de Castro Mayer states that Archbishop Sigaud “has drawn up a decree for the implementation of the New Mass in his diocese.”
44 Letter of Feb. 17, 1970, to Gerald Wailliez.
________________________________________
“I adhere to Eternal Rome”; chapter 17 (pgs 461-465)

Faithfulness to the Mass of All Time: rejecting the Novus Ordo

Archbishop Lefebvre did not found his Society against the New Mass, but for the priesthood. However, the concerns of the priesthood now brought him to reject the new Ordo Missae.(...)

The orthodoxy and validity of the New Mass

Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to speak publicly on the question of the orthodoxy and validity of Paul VI’s Mass. He considered that “one cannot say generally that the New Mass is invalid or heretical”; however, “it leads slowly to heresy.”(...)

In 1975, the Archbishop added that the New Mass:

is ambivalent and ambiguous because one priest can say it with a totally Catholic faith in the sacrifice, etc., and another can say it with a different intention, because the words he pronounces and the gestures he makes no longer contradict [other intentions].[9]

The problem of assisting at the New Mass

Some priests were torn between the need to keep the Faith as expressed by the traditional Mass and a desire to be obedient as they saw it. In the early days of the reforms, Archbishop Lefebvre advised them to keep at least the traditional Offertory and Canon and to say them in Latin. His advice to the seminarians as to the faithful was remarkably moderate intone for one who was first to step up to the breach to repel the New Mass. He exhorted them:

Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but [emphasis mine] if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation.

One can counter the dangers for the Faith through solid catechism:

Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism.[10](...)

Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened: this Mass with its ecuмenical rite was seriously ambiguous and harmful to the Catholic Faith. “This is why one cannot be made to assist at it to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.”[15] In 1975 he still admitted that one could “assist occasionally” at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a longtime. However in 1977, he was more or less absolute:

To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking place in the minds of priests, we must avoid - I could almost say completely - assisting at the New Mass.[16]

A poisoned liturgy

Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals [this is also true for marriages - Ed]...[17]

Footnotes
9 “La messe de Luther,” Talk in Florence, Feb. 15, 1975. [In A Bishop Speaks, 192 ff.]
10 Spiritual Conferences at Econe, Dec. 10, 1972.
15 Letter to M. Lenoir, Nov. 23, 1975.
16 Spiritual Conferences at Econe, 42 B, March 21, 1977.
17 Circuмstances he considered decisive in 1974: Spiritual Conferences at Econe, March 7, 1974, and April 1, 1974.

Remember, folks, baby steps!  

This is a set up to the next catastrophe....the envelopment of SSPX chapels into the local diocese.  

Then, when SSPXers complain that their chapel has closed because the diocese doesn't see a "need" for that particular chapel, the SSPX can calm it's parishioners by saying "Don't worry!  That mass with the NO priest who wears a cassock and says Mass in Latin is good and holy.  You should attend Mass there because it's so close to you!  Don't worry about driving 2 hours...just go.  ABL would approve!"

When the SSPX is becoming soft on the Bogus Ordo, we know it's becoming liberal.

I would never again go to the NO either, no matter what the Society says.

An old priest once said that the devil will allow the tradtional mass when there are no valid priests left.

I find that statement horrifying. How true, It wouldn't matter what kind of Mass, with no valid priest. The ultimate slap in the face to all that is holy... :devil2:

There is a very good set of 4 pamphlets that docuмent how
Bishop +Fellay has evolved over the past 19 years, during his
terms as Superior General.  He began very much in open
and enthusiastic support of the principles of ABL, but he
gradually changed over the years to what he has become now.

The brochures do not presume intentions or motives, but only
look at the facts.  That is, we cannot know what +Fellay had
in mind all that time, but we can most definitely see what he
had to say all those years..................



This brochure area on the website begins with an explanation
of how to go about planning your printing or emailing of these
fine historical docuмents.

Download this brochure and the next 3 from the website

inthissignyoushallconquer:






THE OLD BISHOP FELLAY

Since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991, there has
certainly been a slow, but sure, shift in the principles of the
SSPX vis-à-vis Rome. As J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote, “Little
by little one travels far!” Others may prefer the saying: “Make
haste slowly!” Others perhaps like the phrase “Rome wasn’t
built in a day!” The whole idea behind these words of wisdom
is that some things take time to achieve. When the ancient
Romans laid siege to a city in Gaul, they were informed by
the Gauls that their city had enough supplies to last ten years!
The Romans replied that they would then invade the city in
the eleventh year! The devil, too, works the same way and
advances by small degrees. He is in no rush and advances
slowly and imperceptibly forwards, inch by inch, toward his
goal The enemies of the Church do not lay battle plans for
only a month, a year, or a decade, but for centuries. Slowly,
but surely, they try achieve their goals. Vatican II’s gradual
changes are a perfect example of that!

Most things grow slowly and imperceptibly. You can try to
watch a child or a tree grow each hour or each day, but you
will notice nothing. However, if you measure the child or tree
every year or two, then you will clearly observe the difference
in size. Some people may steal a large sum of money
all at one time and the missing sum is noticed, others
steal a little each week for many years and nobody notices.

In religion, we see the gradual cancerous growths of
Humanism, Liberalism and Modernism grow throughout the
Church over many hundreds of years. It is 50 years since
Vatican II, and that cancer is also still growing!

For over 40 years the SSPX has been fighting against
Modernist Rome, the tactics vary, new soldiers enter the
fight who, perhaps, do not have the ideals and experience
of the pioneer of this resistance to Modernist Rome —
Archbishop Lefebvre. So they grow tired of the fight, they no
longer clearly see the reasons for the struggle, they even
make friends among the enemies. All of this can gradually
change the outlook of the combatants and lead to a false
peace and weakening of principles. As the Archbishop once
said, it is not the inferiors who make the superior, but the
superior who makes the inferiors—or we could say: “Like
father, like son!”

So if the superior changes attitudes or
abandons certain principles, then that will filter down to the
inferiors. In these four flyers we shall look at some quotes
of the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, taken
from letters, conferences and sermons since his consecration
as bishop, to see if there is a notable change in attitude and
principles vis-à-vis Rome.

This first flyer will show his early
talks to be unambiguous and totally in line with Archbishop
Lefebvre. But little by little we will see a weakening or change
in principles.

This mini-series of flyers can only give a sketch
of this. A thorough reading and listening to Bishop Fellay’s
sermons, conferences and interviews will paint a clearer
picture.

We don’t know the motives, we just report the facts.


1995
“The scandal against the Faith is
becoming so usual that it no longer shocks anyone,
while at the same time our enemies—let us call them
by their true name—are inflicting terrible blows on
Holy Mother Church.”
(Bishop Fellay, April 1995, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 48)

1996
“To that devilish undertaking begun
by the Council, especially in the Docuмents on Non-
Christian Religions, The Church in the Modern World
and Religious Liberty, and continued incessantly
since the Council, we offer a flat refusal.”
(Bishop Fellay, March 1996, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 50)

1996
“Rome itself is pushing Catholics
into schism! Do they still have the Faith?”
(Bishop Fellay, October 1996, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 51)

1996
“Archbishop Lefebvre had the
heaviest task. The same fight continues, but the
principles by which we live ... have been established
by him.”

(Bishop Fellay, http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/
Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Expiry-date-2000.htm)

1997
“Here arises the grave problem
of normalizing our relations with Rome! Into whose
hands are we to entrust our future?...For it is a fact that
the authorities in Rome are divided on our account,
as we can prove by docuмents in our possession. So
we can only continue on our present course of staying
in private contact with Rome, while in public we protest
out loud against the Church’s self-destruction, which is
the poisoned fruit of the Liberalism, mortally infecting
so many, many Church leaders.”
(Bishop Fellay, March 1997, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 52)

1997
“Now, what we blame the Council
and post-Conciliar reforms for, it’s precisely that they
undertake to change the nature of the Church…That is
the reason why we cannot obey …. The Church is dying,
torn apart by divisions hidden under the deceitful
slogan of ‘We are in communion with the Pope!’”
(Bishop Fellay, November 1997, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 53)

1999
“In face of the scandal of Assisi,
being renewed this time in the Vatican, we cannot help
protesting...for such an affront to...Almighty God. The
First Commandment is again being violated, head on,
only this time in full view of the Basilica of St. Peter!
How many martyrs must be turning in their graves...
Such acts of idolatry are an abomination in the full
sense of the word, but the attempt is being made
to give them by their repetition a sort of legitimacy.
Daily exposure to scandal no longer shocks...and woe
to anyone daring to state that it is the strict duty of all
men to render the one true worship to the one true
God. It baffles all understanding how the Vatican can
give up fighting the age-old enemy, embrace brethren
that it no longer wishes to call separated...The priests
of St. Peter’s Fraternity are now bitterly learning
how naively they put their trust in the churchmen who
promised them the moon back in 1988, if only they
would abandon the house of their father, Archbishop
Lefebvre, and enter into a process of “reconciliation”
… Despite their defection then, these priests are being
blamed now for not integrating with their faithful into
the “reality” of the Church....We cannot help thinking
that Rome would have treated us the same way had
Archbishop Lefebvre followed through with the May
5th Protocol of 1988. From conversations between
leaders of St. Peter’s Fraternity and certain cardinals,
it appears that Rome does not feel bound by the
terms of that protocol on which St. Peter’s Fraternity
was nevertheless founded!”
(Bishop Fellay, October 1999, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 57)

The above quote, condemning Rome’s sacrilegious prayer
meeting with false religions at Assisi, was good and powerful, but
by the time the third sacrilegious Assisi prayer meeting took place in
2011, Bishop Fellay said almost nothing, basically only a sentence
or two, while reprimanding those who spoke out strongly. Things
were getting worse, and he was saying less about it. Why?
Because of the talks that were going on with Rome at that moment!

[top of back side of trifold brochure/flyer/pamphlet]

So politics comes before Truth! That reminds us of those words of
another superior general of Roman forces, the liberal
Pontius Pilate, who said: “What is truth?” God is Truth. God never
changes. Truth never changes! That is the truth!

2000 –YEAR OF CHANGE

It is hard to put a finger on a date or an event that is the
“watershed” or crucial turning-point in the attitude of the SSPX
in relation to Modernist Rome. When a large ship starts to
make its turn, it is not noticeable. Only after a while does one
notice that the ship has veered slightly off-course. It is often
hindsight that realizes what has happened. We can say that
the year 2000 and the SSPX pilgrimage to Rome was fairly
close to the start of the ship steering a new course. But, as in
a musical piece, the transition from one melody to another has
to incorporate BOTH melodies, which the transition intertwines.
In the beginning the old melody dominates while the new
melody is introduced only slightly, then, later, the new melody
dominates while the old melody gradually fades away and is
finally abandoned. So it is not surprising to hear both religious
melodies, Tradition and Liberalism, gradually mingling together.
We are currently listening to the sweet music of transition!

2000
Bishop Williamson quotes Bishop Fellay from the
SSPX Superiors’ Meeting in Albano, after the 2000 Rome pilgrimage:

“Firmness pays off. It is Rome which is wrong.
We have no reason to back down. We must continue
as we have done. Has Rome changed? … So we must
stand firmer, not less firm … We are at war! ... Their
conversion is in Providence’s hands, not ours. Until
then, let us pray for them, and give them a hard time!
... For the moment, we are lucky to be cut-off from
Rome, which only wants us to compromise.”
(Bishop Fellay, August 2000, taken from the Letter to Friends
and Benefactors of Bishop Williamson, September 2000)

After the 2000 SSPX pilgrimage to Rome, attended by
thousands of SSPX laity, Rome began its crafty flattery and
seduction. Bishop Fellay, like a prudent virgin, was at first
resistant, but the constant amorous advances of the seducer,
who would not be putt-off by the protestations, would plant some
seed within the object of his desires.

2001
“At the end of last summer’s
pilgrimage to Rome, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had
a first direct contact with the Society’s Bishops ....
On December 29, Cardinal Castrillon proposed to
Bishop Fellay different elements that could serve
towards a possible agreement between Rome and
the Society. The Superior General expressed... his
distrust, his apprehension. On December 30...[Bishop
Fellay] saw the Pope. On January 13 there was a
special meeting of the [SSPX] General Council and
of the Society’s Bishops...at which were established
the principles to guide us in the present situation...
[Bishop Fellay] exposed the necessity of guarantees
from Rome before going ahead in the details of eventual
discussions or an agreement: that the Tridentine
Mass be granted to all priests of the entire world; that
the censures against the Bishops be declared null.
The principles that are to guide us through this rather
new situation are the following: (1) Given that Rome
has initiated this effort, it is normal that the Society
take it with the seriousness that it deserves. (2) Our
distrust is extreme, keeping before our eyes on the
one hand the very recent example of the Fraternity
of St. Peter, and...the continuity in the post-conciliar
direction. (3) The Society has in no way the intention
of modifying its principles and its general goal...
(4) If there were to be an agreement it could
only be seen in the perspective of giving back to
Tradition its rights of citizenship, even if the final
triumph will only be obtained gradually.”
(Bishop Fellay, January 22, 2001, Statement to Members & Friends)

In 1995 Bishop Fellay says he will not change, but follow the
principles established by Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop laid
down this principle after the consecrations of 1988: “Why should we
be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?

YES, IF ROME AND THE POPE WERE In LInE WITH TrAdITIOn.”

And again: “I received a few weeks ago, another telephone call from
Cardinal Oddi: ‘Well, Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way?’
I replied, ‘YOu MuST CHAngE, COME bACk TO TrAdITIOn.
It is not a question of the Liturgy, it is a question of the Faith’.”
(Address to Priests, September 6, 1990).

In the 1988 November-December
Fideliter interview, the Archbishop was asked: “In your last letter
to the Holy Father (June 1988) you declared that you were waiting
for a more propitious time FOR THE RETURN OF ROME TO TRADITION.
What do you think of a possible re-opening of the dialogue with Rome?”
Archbishop Lefebvre replies: “We do not have the same outlook on a
reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as bringing us back to Vatican II.
WE SEE IT AS A rETurn OF rOME TO TrAdITIOn.
We don’t agree; it is a dIAlOguE OF dEATH ... supposing that Rome
calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions.
I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during
the dialogue. No more!

I WIll PlACE THE dISCuSSIOn AT THE dOCTrInAl LEVEL:

‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded
you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and
Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of
Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these
Popes ?...
IF YOu dO nOT ACCEPT THE dOCTrInE OF YOur PrEdECESSOrS,
IT IS uSElESS TO TAlk!
As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council ... nO dIAlOguE IS
POSSIblE. IT IS uSElESS!’”

Though initially holding to Archbishop
Lefebvre’s principles governing future dialogue
with Rome, as shown by the above quotes, in
the next three flyers we will see Bishop Fellay
slowly alter the Archbishop’s stance to a much
weaker and more dangerous stance in relation
to Rome.

READ THE OTHER 3 FLYERS IN THIS 4-PART SERIES

Together they explain the subtle & gradual shift in
principles governing the SSPX’s relations with Rome
after A.D. 2000.

 Neil Obstat said:

                                                                                                                   I like to remember the Faithful in the Philippines, who, as soon as they heard
that +Fellay and the Chapter had decided and approved that making a 'deal' with
modernist Rome was possible, and had come up with the criteria by which it
would be acceptable, they walked out the door.  

They would rather have no Mass than to give assent to such capitulation.  

Would that more Catholics had such courage of their convictions.



Neil,
    My friends seem to think things are okay, as long as they have the Latin Mass. It's okay to throw out Bishop Williamson and these good priests, who have been heroic. I just don't understand!!!           Kyrie Eleison!

There is nothing the laity can do except walk out of the door. The leadership and its immediate circle determine policy and the flock obeys. The best that can be hoped for is some priests splitting off and starting their own parishes. Most people are attracted by the appearance of tradition than in its substance.  

If you ask me, this reminds me of the Novus Ordo. Let's pray, be content, have unity and be obedient to Bishop Fellay. Our obedience must be to Our Lord.  
Kyrie Eleison!