So if they're underselling the opposition to the NOM, could it be preliminary to accepting some kind of hybrid arrangement, where a reformed Tridentine Mass would be accepted by SSPX?
Mr. Chaussee (in the attached docuмent, pp. 16-18):
4 - WHERE DOES THIS LEAD US?
Let us now imagine what will become of the liturgical situation in France where we know the spirit of independence of the bishops.
As Celier predicts, the liturgical situation will not be simplified; we will move from the current biritualism to "a liturgical offer of incredible diversity". In short, we are moving towards a "situation of generalized anarchy" (p. 197).
To get out of it, what does he propose? Nothing good, as far as we can tell. He imagines that a hybrid rite could be born which he calls "Pipaule Mass", a mixture of the rite "Pius" and the rite "Paul", the Mass of Saint Pius V and the Mass of Paul VI, which could be used by young priests to "refound in tradition the new liturgy which they celebrate in public" (p. 196). But also to "improve by mixing" the rite they prefer according to the worrying option that Benedict XVI calls "mutual enrichment". He imagines using the very open character of the new liturgy to "propose many variants" by "allowing the maximum number of borrowings from tradition" (p. 200). He still imagines that "the new Mass would be irrigated with the riches of the traditional liturgy"[again the mixing!],
but he "does not imagine that this spiritual Jєωel that is the traditional liturgy will cease to be celebrated" (p. 201). Let us hope that the attentive reader will have noticed (p. 196), the cloven hoof of the Evil One who can be seen under the cassock in the proposal of the hybrid mass. "Pipaule" is pronounced as people which gives "people mass" or popular mass ! as we speak of the "people press" to say scandalous press. We would laugh about it if the subject allowed it. Well, that word alone should have drawn a censor's attention to everything behind this suggestion to make a hybrid (sterile, one more) of the Holy Mass and the new Mass.
We ask the reader to forgive us for sharing with him the disgust we felt when we read and reread this irresponsible speech in order to grasp its full meaning. We will not say anything about the fundamental questions it raises that would take us too far. But let us return to simple common sense; he tells us that it makes no sense to move away from reality and treat the sacred as being only trivial; and that it makes no sense to hope to get out of disorder by freeing the imagination from control.
By the way, let us say a word about another proposal for a mixed mass made by another priest: On a provisional basis, and to familiarize the conciliar faithful with the Tridentine Mass, it could be said in the vernacular language and on a "table versus populum". This is very similar to the Celier proposal to "reverse the path of rupture". However, it cannot be by preserving the innovations which, in 1970, desacralized the Mass - namely the table to the assembly and the vulgar language - that we will contribute to resacralising the liturgy and making the faithful (Protestant and ignorant) aware of the supernatural richness of the Holy Mystery, which will sooner or later have to be exposed to them before false pastors convince them by the new theology, of the equivalence of the two rituals. In French as in Latin, a mystery remains impenetrable, and fatal causes will never be transformed into favourable causes by the mere accompaniment of the Roman rite. Thus the "pipaule" mass, like any other "crossbreeding", would certainly increase the liturgical disorder by adding a new "mass" (?) to that of Saint Pius V, and to the four versions of Paul VI, without taking into account the multiple improvised and unofficial versions. So we would have more than five bad or dangerous variants for one good one!
In conclusion, and without saying it clearly, Celier suggests imitating the priests of Campos (Brazil), who have obtained a personalized "Apostolic Administration" (p. 214), and above all, the Institute of the Good Shepherd (Bordeaux), which he mentions favourably on several occasions (pages 192-193; 209; 215-216 and 221) and whose founder, Father Philippe Laguérie (p. 176), he defends, although he has made his personal contribution to the exclusion of this frontier priest 42. But Father Laguérie, in his Blog and his newsletter Le Mascaret, is very pleased with the publication of Pichon et Celier's book. This proves the objective alliance between them. And when Celier says: "Let's be clear. I do not agree with the Institute of the Good Shepherd, otherwise I would be a member of it", this is a gratuitous statement and should not be believed either clear or sincere. It is clear, on the contrary, that with regard to the subject of this book - the rallying of traditionalists in Rome - Celier agrees with the PBI, but tactically, to persuade the faithful of the Brotherhood to accept the offers of Rome, it is better that it says the opposite; and strategically, it is obviously more useful to the cause of the rally by remaining in the Brotherhood than by joining the PBI. That's what his book proves.
Topic: SSPX's Most Dangerous Man (Read 5545 times)