Please Help Bishop Fellay Find His Hermeneutic of Continuity
Thomas A. Droleskey
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, has engendered a good deal of controversy with those who exercise strong influence over almost all things conciliar, that is, adherents of the Talmud, whom he termed "enemies of the Church" in his meandering talk on December 28, 2012, the Feast of the Holy Innocents, in Toronto, Canada:
And the same with the Church! It’s OUR
Church! It’s sick, we pray for it, we do what we can. We try not to
be burned, once again. So we take our.. our.. our.. precautions. We
must – there’s no other way. Now, when will the time come? This is very
difficult to answer. I frankly, personally, I don’t think that this
is possible until the head is in our favor. Because the fight is too,
too heavy. And the head, that means the Pope, must be absolutely
convinced of the necessity of Tradition. The fight might continue in
the Church, but as long as we don’t have that, I don’t see really any
concrete, serious possibility to go ahead, because it’s too dangerous,
too dangerous. We have many enemies, many enemies. But look and that’s
very interesting. Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the
Church would recognize the Society? The ENEMIES of the Church. The
Jews, the Masons, the [Modernists]! The most opposed that the Society
would be recognized as a Catholic: the ENEMIES of the Church!
Interesting, isn’t it? More than that, what was the point?
What did they say to Rome? They said,
“You must oblige these people to accept Vatican II. That’s also VERY
interesting, isn’t it? People whom [sic] from OUTSIDE the Church, who
were clearly during centuries, were enemies of the Church, say to Rome,
if you want to accept these people, you MUST oblige them to accept the
Council. Isn’t that interesting? Oh, it is! I think it’s FANTASTIC!
Because it shows that Vatican II is THEIR THING! Not the Church’s –
THEY see, the ENEMIES of the Church see THEIR benefit in the Council.
Very interesting! And so, I may say that’s the kind of argument we’re
going to use with Rome. Trying to make them reflect.. trying to make
them reflect. (Transcript of Bishop Fellay's Meandering Musings, December 28, 2012.)
These comments are perfectly accurate.
They are accurate theologically.
They are accurate historically.
They are a precise and a most accurate account explaining who has been most opposed to the Society of Saint Pius X's "regularization" as a full member within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Had such a "regularization" taken place--and Bishop Fellay still held out some hope in this December 28, 2012, that it such a "regularization" can still take place, the Society of Saint Pius X would have been placed aside such communities as the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos, Brazil, the Institute of the Good Shepherd and, among others, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priests, each of which is permitted to offer or stage (as the case may be) the ever-modernizing version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (termed the "Extraordinary Form" in the lexicon of the conciliar revolutionaries) in exchange for silence about the sacrileges, apostasies and blasphemies perpetrated by the conciliar revolution. Adherents of the Talmud hate the Society of Saint Pius X precisely because its leaders quite indeed represent what they hate and what they have sought to eradicate: the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the Social Reign of Christ the King and of the necessity to seek with urgency the conversion of al non-Catholics to true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
Yes, Talmudists have worked overtime to oppose all efforts on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries to "regularize" the Society of Saint X and have expressed concerns over the formulation of Good Friday Prayer for the Jews (see Bishop Donald Sanborn's Genuflecting to the Jews). Howls of protest were let loose four years ago following what Bishop Richard Richard Williamson has more or less admitted publicly were efforts on his part to speak the truth in his interview with Swedish television that just happened to air on Wednesday, January 21, 2012, three days before the official announcement from the Occupy Vatican Movement that the "excommunications" imposed against the four priests (Richard Williamson, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonse de Galaretta) who were consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in Econe, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988 (see (see Those Who Deny The Holocaust, Disciples of Caiphas, Under The Bus, Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun, Story Time in Econe, Yes, Sir, Master Scribe and No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide).
There is no need to beat a dead horse on this matter.
There is no need to quote what has been cited on this site in numerous articles concerning the conciliar belief that the Mosaic Covenant is still in force and that it has never been revoked (see Propagating Only What His Boss Believes and Teaches, part one, Propagating Only What His Boss Believes and Teaches, part two, On The Terms Of The Enemies Of Christ The King, Saint Peter and Anti-Peter, For Fear of the Jews and, among so many others, To Be Loved by the Jews).
Perhaps just this one reminder will suffice to explain that the only kind of Catholicism that is considered "acceptable" to the Talmudists" is the conciliar corruption of It:
The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient
peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be
interpreted within God's design. We must in any case rid ourselves of the
traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living
argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, "the
pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the
gentiles" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982, alluding to Rom 11:17-24).
We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians
over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the
permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in
the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its
start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith
and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised
still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the
life of the Church" (John Paul II, March 6th, 1982). Catechesis should on
the other hand help in understanding the meaning for the Jews of the
extermination during the years 1939-1945, and its consequences. (Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis.)
One of the principal reasons that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict repackaged and re-labeled his long held Modernist belief in the "evolution of dogma" (see part one of this commentary for this site's most recent documentation of this belief) during his infamous Christmas address to the members of his curia on December 22, 2005, was to rationalize the apostate conciliar teaching concerning the Jews:
It is clear that this commitment to
expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this
truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that
new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding
of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on
faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard,
the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding,
indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the
problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new
definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world
religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi
regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and
difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way
the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)
Here are two antidotes to this poison as provided by the Catholic Church, guided infallibly as she is by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:
It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and
proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only
pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become
participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41],
unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;
and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to
those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and
exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church. (Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442.)
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the
Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the
Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve,
mother of all the living. 
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our
Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been
abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries,
enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole
world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine
Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the
sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 
"To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the
Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the
Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one
Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the
innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently
from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; 
and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that
our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church.
"For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching
of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over
the gentiles"; 
by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces,
which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His
mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger
was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual
graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the
fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above
all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into
possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical
Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
It is not, of course, to be "anti-Semitic" to oppose the enemies of Christ the King and the immutable truths contained in His Sacred Deposit of Faith. It is our duty to be opposed to Judaism and to be opposed to all false religions precisely because we have true charity for the souls of those steeped in those false religions, those who, of course, are not on the path to eternal salvation and who serve as instruments of fomenting the kind of social disorder that the good God uses to chastise us for our own infidelities and lukewarmness (see Chopped Liver No More and Chopped Liver No More Update).
Quite in contrast to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's constant references to the crimes committed by agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich against adherents of the Talmud that he uses to justify a new "definition" of what he thinks is the Catholic Church's "relationship with the faith of Israel," Father Denis Fahey provided us with a cogent piece of Catholic truth about how the term "anti-Semitism" is used by many adherents of the Talmud to fill Catholics with guilt and to keep them on the "conciliar reservation" that they have so generously staked out for them:
The term “anti-semitism,” with all its war
connotation of Nazi cruelty, is now having its comprehension widened to
include every form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic
programme. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish naturalism is keeping
Catholics blind to the consequences of accepting the term with its
Jewish comprehension. According to the leaders of the Jewish nation, to
stand for the rights of Christ the King is to be an anti-Semite. (Father Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)
There is an irony in all of this, my good and disappearing readers, in that Bishop Fellay is now in trouble for having antagonized the conciliar church's "elder brothers" and minders, something that he has gone to great lengths to castigate Bishop Richard Williamson for having done. Yes, I think that it is very necessary to help Bishop Fellay find his own "hermeneutic of continuity."
Although many examples, which you can find in the articles written in early 2009 after Bishop Williamson's interview was aired on Swedish television, could be provided of Bishop Fellay's public criticism of Bishop Williamson's comments about the events of World War II and of the conciliar teaching on the Jews and Judaism, it is sufficient for present purposes to simply remind you that Bishop Fellay is suffering at the present moment for doing precisely what he excoriated Bishop Williamson of doing in "happier times" in his relationship with the conciliar authorities: antagonize the Jews for speaking the truth in charity about them. Somewhere out there, yes, beneath the pale blue sky, Bishop Williamson must be enjoying himself.
What is truly said about this, of course, is the fact that Bishop Fellay still believes there is "hope" for the "regularization" of the Society of Saint Pius X by the lords of conciliarism even though his own meandering talk gives ample proof that the conciliar religion is false and is just as hideous and repugnant to the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, as the Talmudic brand of Judaism and all other false religions.
The Catholic Church cannot give us error, ambiguity or confusion. That point has been made many times on this site, including in yesterday's article.
The Catholic Church cannot give us liturgies that are incentives to impiety. Once again, good readers, let me provide you with the teaching of the Council of Trent on this point:
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments,
and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the
celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of
piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)
There is really no need go on, is there? Those who don't want to be
convinced that there is no need for there to be any "super-magisterium"
to "convert" a true pope to the perennial truths of the Holy Faith won't
believe any amount of evidence that is placed before them that the
following explanation of our ecclesiastical situation is the correct
A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny
what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in
belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.
The attribute of infallibility was given to the
popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would
remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason
to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic
Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility
means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from
error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the
Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on
earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past
popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and
St. Peter and his successors.
If a pope did not accept and believe this entire
body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not
himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If
he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head.
(Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)
"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines.
In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been
believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and
properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)
Perhaps the bishops and priests of both of the Society of Saint Pius X and of the Society of Saint Pius X of the Strict Observance will come to recognize that a conciliar "cardinal" got it entirely correct eight years ago when he said the following:
It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy.
... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what
judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation
or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)
How do we know what is heresy? The supposed "unknowability" of heresy has been denounced by the Catholic Church (see an appendix in yesterday's article of Mr. Michael Creighton's superb summary of this point)
Well, if you don't know by now, perhaps you can review the late Mr. Jerry Meng's Heresy: What Is It? and to review, if you have not done so already, Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.
Saint Paul the Apostle prophesied on these times as follows:
 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.  And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall
kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness
of his coming, him,  Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,  And
in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive
not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.  But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of
God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in
sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth:  Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.  Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath
loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in
grace,  Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians, 2: 6-12.)
The Catholic Church simply cannot be an agent of any kind of "operation of error."
True Popes Never Need to Convert to the Faith.
Got it? Good.
In the midst of this "operation of error" that
abounds in the midst of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (could
anyone imagine the necessity of the bishops under Pope Saint Pius X
arguing with him on the prohibition against the taking of innocent human
life in the womb in any circumstance at any time?), we need to ask Our
Lady to help us remain with our true bishops and true priests who make
no concessions to conciliarism. Any shepherd who does not warn his
faithful to stay completely and totally away from the conciliar wolves
is exposing them to the deceits of the devil represented by likes of
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his henchmen, among whom are Rino
Fisichella and Federico Lombardi.
The tree of conciliarism is indeed rotten from its very top to its very poisonous roots
Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in
the end. May we persevere in our
praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit so
that we, unworthy though we may be, might be able to plant a few seeds
for the day when Catholics can say "so long" to the conciliar
revolutionaries and their perverse liturgies and their corrupt doctrinal
and their false moral teachings and "hello" to true popes and true
bishops who are defenders of the entirety of the Catholic Faith,
including the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Primus and Felician, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Pope Pius VI Against the Ecclesiology of the Society of Saint Pius X
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)