The terrible dilemma of Bishop Fellay

Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader pro tem of the Society of St. Pius X, finds himself on the horns of an intellectual and theological dilemma. On November 1st, Bishop Fellay celebrated Holy Mass -- the Traditional Mass of All Time -- at the SSPX seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.

During his sermon, after recalling the spiritual meaning of the Feast of All Saints, he explained the status of the Society's relations with Rome. Unfortunately for him and for the SSPX, Bishop Fellay's discourse expressed more clearly than ever before why his position and that of his wing of the Society is untenable.

Let's examine the logic:

Premise 1. The magisterium is the authentic judge of Apostolic Tradition. It is the magisterium which tells people what belongs to Tradition and what doesn't.

Bishop Fellay accepts this premise. He accepts that "magisterium" means the pope. But that is not good Catholic teaching. "Magisterium" is a neuter noun. It is an objective thing, not a person. Objectively, Tradition is Tradition. Even the pope cannot change Tradition, as it comes from Christ's Apostles. In 1870 the first Vatican Council proclaimed that even the pope does not have the power to change Sacred Tradition. That is dogma!

Premise 2. The Pope claims that the teachings of the Vatican II Council are "Tradition". Benedict XVI goes on and on about the "hermeneutic of continuity" -- whatever that is -- and asserts over and over again that Vatican II is not a break with the past, but part of Catholic "Tradition".

Bishop Fellay accepts this premise too. Therefore, he and his followers in the SSPX -- there are dissenters, notably Bishop Richard Williamson -- must accept the teachings of the Vatican II Council concerning ecumenism, collegiality, religious liberty, and many other modernistic "doctrines" which are objectively not Catholic.

It follows too that Bishop Fellay and those who stand with him must accept the validity of the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Novus Ordo worship service -- notice I didn't say "Mass" -- of 1969, as well as the status of those admitted to the priesthood under the New Ordinal.

But... in his sermon, the bishop claims that he can not follow these two conclusions. The problem is that -- logically -- if he accepts the two premises, he must accept their two conclusions. Thus, Bishop Fellay exposes himself as either unable to follow the logic or a hypocrite.

In his sermon, he confesses that he tried to have it both ways, to somehow reconcile the Vatican's position with his previous opposition to it. He penned certain changes denying the conclusions to the Pope's proposed "Doctrinal Preamble". But Benedict himself struck out Bishop Fellay's amendments and returned to him the original document, demanding that the bishop and the SSPX accept it unchanged.

According to the Traditio website, from which the foregoing is adapted, Bishop Fellay could redeem his hypocrisy by rejecting the two conclusions and accepting a different premise, i.e. the premise of the Catholic Fathers and Doctors of the Church that even a pope can be a personal heretic.

St. Paul denounced St. Peter for heresy (Galatians 2:11 et seq.), from which very important example we learn that the faithful must not follow a pope into heresy. But Bishop Fellay rejects that Catholic premise in favor of allowing the Modernists -- led by a thoroughly Modernist pope disguised as a "conservative" -- to occupy and possess the Holy See and the Chair of St. Peter.

Thus (says Traditio), Bishop Fellay has become the Great Hypocrite, and his followers in the Society of St. Pius X follows him into this hypocrisy. What will be the consequences for them of their hypocritical acceptance of heretical principles? St. Matthew 24:51 tells us: "The Lord ... shall separate him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Click here to learn more about the limitations of papal authority to change Sacred Tradition, from the writings of Roman Catholic popes, councils, saints, and theologians. The second part of this rather lengthy piece is a list -- an astonishingly long list -- of popes who arguably fell into material (personal) heresy.

Finally, the article speaks of two anti-popes. Particularly à propos is the account of St. Bernard's rejection of the validity of a pope (Anacletus II) who was elected by the majority of cardinals, occupied the See of Rome, and was recognized by the whole world!