Society of St. Pius X

Fr. Cooper says being faithful to Our Lord means faithfulness to Bishop Fellay

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Fr. Daniel Cooper, an SSPX priest in the U. S. district, wrote in a July 2015 letter to SSPX faithful at the Arcadia, California SSPX chapel:  “To break with Bishop Fellay is tantamount to breaking with the Roman Church.”  Page 2.

 

Fr. Cooper’s un-Catholic assertion promotes blind obedience, and is false for two reasons:

 

➢  Fr. Cooper misleads the faithful, because they have no obligation to follow Bishop Fellay unless they choose to do so.  The faithful have not promised to obey him, and they can cease following him without sin, even if  Bishop Fellay were leading well (which he is not).

 

➢  The SSPX priests and religious have promised to obey their SSPX superiors but even these priests and religious have the duty to “break” with Bishop Fellay when he leads them into errors against the Faith (as he is).  The Catholic Church is not the Church of blind obedience and hero-worship! 

 

 

Further Discussion of Above Reasons

 

First Reason: Laymen have no duty at all, to follow Bishop Fellay

 

Laymen (to whom Fr. Cooper is writing), are not “members” of the SSPX and have not promised to obey Bishop Fellay.  Laymen have no duty to follow him, as Archbishop Lefebvre explained:

 

[I]t must be borne in mind that an authority which is supplied [to the SSPX] does not have the same characteristics as authority which exists ordinarily in the Church.  It is exercised case-by-case, and is thus not habitual: in other words the people who benefit from it can always withdraw from it, and the supplied authority has no power to make them return.[1] 

 

Bishop Tissier echoes his founder and refutes the SSPX’s new idea[2] that all Traditional Catholics owe Bishop Fellay obedience.  In a 1991 article available on SSPX.org, with a forward written by Fr. Peter Scott, Bishop Tissier explained to the faithful: “your submission and your dependence with respect to the clergy must be as voluntary as the clergy have less right to demand it.”[3] 

 

As Bishop Tissier also explained, the SSPX “cannot demand to exercise [authority over particular laymen as] a strict right”.  Id.   This is because “the clergy cannot, strictly speaking, require this dependence since it [i.e., the SSPX clergy] has no ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful.”  Id.  

 

Bishop Tissier told the faithful:

 

It is you who have to appeal to this supplied jurisdiction [of traditional priests and bishops].  I therefore say that the sense of the Church, the sensus fidei, must persuade faithful laymen and laywomen to willingly submit their apostolic activities to the traditional clergy.  Id.  (Emphasis added.)

 

Thus, Fr. Cooper is wrong that somehow Bishop Fellay or any other SSPX leader can exercise authority over any faithful, except to the extent that such persons voluntarily accept such authority, and voluntarily decide to follow such direction, and for as long as they voluntarily accept that direction, or authority.

 

So when Fr. Cooper makes loyalty to Bishop Fellay the test for being Catholic, he misleads the faithful.  The truth is that the faithful are free to “break” with Bishop Fellay if they choose to do so, but of course, they are never free to “break” with the Catholic Church.

 

 

Second Reason: Following Bishop Fellay into Error is not True Obedience

The virtue of obedience is a subordinate virtue under the Cardinal Virtue of Justice.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104. a2.  Faith and Charity are superior.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4 a.7 sed cont. & ad 3; IIa IIae, Q.23 a.6. 

St. Thomas teaches that “sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, a.5, ad 3.  “[A]nyone obeying [a superior’s sinful command] would sin as acting against a divine command.” Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a.7, ad.5 (“…ipse peccaret praecipiens, et ei obediens, quasi contra praeceptum Domini agens…”).  

 

Thus, even SSPX priests and religious (who have promised to obey Bishop Fellay as Superior General), have the duty to stand against his liberalism and his betrayal of the Catholic Faith.  Such stand against Bishop Fellay’s liberalism is standing for the Catholic Church.

Promoting Blind Obedience as a means to Promote Liberalism, is Not New

 

The priests of the “new” SSPX truly deserve their nick-name “Fellay-ites”, because they reverse course, following Bishop Fellay wherever he leads.  By contrast, the priests of the “old” SSPX never deserved the name “Lefebvrists” (given to the SSPX by the conciliar church), because the SSPX did not follow Archbishop Lefebvre blindly, wherever he led.  In the “old” SSPX, no one was ever told that “to break with Archbishop Lefebvre is tantamount to breaking with the Roman Church.”

 

Fr. Cooper is not the first one to promote blind obedience in the new SSPX.  It is now common SSPX “doctrine”.  See, e.g., this analysis here: http://www.therecusant.com/bpf-jurisdiction-abuse  See also, Fr. Karl Stehlin’s rebuke of the Capuchins of Morgan, France, for (supposed) “disobedience” to Bishop Fellay.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2014-04-11-fr-stehlin-ltr.html 

Fr. Stehlin’s own blind obedience was rewarded by Bishop Fellay promoting him in August 2014, to becoming District Superior of the SSPX Asian District. 

 

The current SSPX demand of blind obedience is a faint echo of this same demonic tactic used by the conciliar revolutionaries after Vatican II.  Such conciliar blind obedience was the long-planned Masonic strategy for Revolution in the Catholic Church, as stated below:

 

In a hundred years time… bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter, when in fact they will be following our flag… The reforms will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.

1818 Alta Vendita Permanent Instructions, ordered published by Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII (emphasis added).

 

Perhaps Bishop Fellay and the new SSPX don’t realize under which banner they have begun marching, as they use obedience to squelch resistance to their new liberalism.


[1]           Archbishop Lefebvre, on February 20, 1990, quoted in the Traditional Dominican’s publication, Sel de la Terre.  http://www.therecusant.com/bpf-jurisdiction-abuse

[2]           See the analysis here: http://www.therecusant.com/bpf-jurisdiction-abuse

Bishop Fellay and Fr. Daniel Cooper

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Pope Benedict & the Traditional Mass (Bishop Fellay vs. Archbishop Lefebvre)

 

In his 6-27-15 interview, Bishop Fellay insists on Pope Benedict’s sincere attachment to, and promotion of, the Traditional Liturgy:

 

[I]t is important to insist upon Benedict XVI’s interest for the liturgy in general.  He truly wished to put the entire traditional liturgy, not only the Mass, at the disposition of the priests and the faithful.

 

Quoted from: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23861

 

Archbishop Lefebvre better understood the tactics of this same conciliar revolutionary:

 

They [then-Cardinal Ratzinger and the rest of the hierarchy] do not grant anything out of appreciation for the Traditional Liturgy, but simply to trick those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the Traditional block so as to destroy it!

 

September 9, 1988 conference in Écône, (published in Fideliter 66, November-December 1988); English translation from June 2015 Recusant, p.7.

 

 

Fr. Daniel Cooper is Silent on Vatican II

 

Fr. Daniel Cooper, SSPX pastor in Arcadia, California, wrote in a July 2015 letter to parishioners:

 

A concerned parishioner said to me, “What’s wrong with the priests of the SSPX?  They never speak against Vatican II.  Now all we get is the gospel.” This is so typical.  She is complaining because the priests of the SSPX are doing their duty, spreading the message of the gospel.  But she wants them to be attacking Vatican II from the pulpit.  Very rarely is there a good reason to do this.

 

Page 2; emphasis added.

 

By avoiding mention of the principal errors of our time, Fr. Cooper fits in well with the SSPX’s new direction and will fit in well when the SSPX becomes a “recognized” (indult) group.

Bishop Fellay’s Strange Theory about the Role of the Baptismal Character

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Catholic catechisms and St. Thomas teach that a baptismal character (which is an indelible mark) does two things: 1) it marks us as belonging to Christ; and 2) it enables us to receive other sacraments.  Summa, IIIa, Q.63.

 

Not feeling himself limited to Catholic Doctrine, Bishop Fellay expounds the strange theory that the baptismal character also causes us to recognize the goodness of the traditional Mass.  Bishop Fellay says that, when we attend the traditional Mass, there is a “click” [his word], which is our baptismal character causing us to recognize that this Mass is pleasing to God and is truly Catholic.  Bishop Fellay then says “most of the time there is absolutely no ‘click’ with the new mass.”  Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s October 19, 2012 conference, sold by Angelus Press, disc 1, about minute 76 (emphasis added.)

 

Recently, Bishop Fellay reiterated his novel theory:

 

[Y]oung [conciliar] priests identify with this [Traditional] liturgy, precisely because it is timeless.  The Church lives in eternity.  The liturgy does also too [sic], which is why it is always young.  Close to God, it is outside of time.  So it is no surprise that the baptismal character makes this harmony resound even in souls that have never known the liturgy.

 

June 27 2015 interview found at https://fsspx.news/en/content/23861 (emphasis added).

 

There are two problems with Bishop Fellay’s “click” theory:

 

a)    Bishop Fellay’s statements are not the traditional Catholic teaching about the role of the baptismal character.  Catholics are led to recognize what is good and evil through grace, virtue and especially the gifts of the Holy Ghost, not by the “clicking” of our baptismal character.

 

b)    Bishop Fellay’s comments are soft on the new mass, because his comments indirectly say that at least occasionally our God-given sacramental character (which supposedly helps us to discern what is good) will give a “click” in recognition that the new mass is good!

 

One supposes that Bishop Fellay would say that this (purported) “click” occurs when the new mass is used under the “best”, strictest conditions. But if the new mass is good under strict conditions, then the new mass is good in itself!

Bishop Fellay Promotes a Hybrid Mass

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

In an interview conducted at the end of June 2015, Bishop Fellay said that blending the Traditional Catholic Mass with the new mass, is an idea which makes him “glad”.  http://sspx.org/en/fellay_interview_tradition_schneider_sarah_Francis

 

In particular, Bishop Fellay declared his support for the idea of “introducing the Traditional Offertory into the new mass”.  Id. 

 

Bishop Fellay is advocating sacrilege, which is an “irreverent treatment of the sacred”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.1.  The Traditional Mass is entirely sacred, including its Offertory.  The new mass is evil, is a danger to the Faith and is a work of the devil and the modernist enemies of the Church.  Combining the Traditional Mass’s sacred Offertory with the evil new mass is as irreverent to the sacred Offertory, as would be mixing consecrated holy oils, with dung.  (In fact, because the new mass is evil while dung is merely repulsive (not evil), what Bishop Fellay is glad about, is worse.)

 

The sacrilege Bishop Fellay is supporting is a mortal sin worse than murder (because sacrilege is a grave sin directly against God, whereas murder is a grave sin directed against man).  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.2, sed contra; IIa IIae, Q.13, a.3, ad 1. 

 

In the same interview, Bishop Fellay says that this mixing of the sacred and the evil would be “a great step forward” because it would help conciliar Catholics.  But this is like the liberal view that it would be good to combine the Kingship of Christ and the Kingship of Satan on the same banner, in order to “gradually bring around” those who now support the Kingship of Satan. 

 

The truth is, the end does not justify the means!  Uncompromising Catholics do not approve sacrilege even if the goal is to help “bring around” the conciliar Catholics (and even if this means would achieve such an end).

 

Bishop Fellay might think that he can avoid the wrath of God for promoting the hybrid mass, because he plans to prevent the SSPX from using it and he speculates that no traditional priests would ever be so weak so as to rationalize their own use of the hybrid mass (in place of the Traditional Mass).  But whatever Bishop Fellay’s suppositions are, he still is promoting the irreverent treatment of the sacred Offertory, by mixing it with evil (the new mass).

 

Bishop Fellay is not culpable for the Vatican’s creation of the new mass in the 1960s, just as (in the above example), Bishop Fellay is not responsible for the banners of Satan already in use.  But Bishop Fellay is responsible for scandalizing the faithful, by promoting the creation of this hybrid mass; and he is also responsible for lending his influence, as Rome decides whether to blend the sacred and the evil masses.  This is like (in the above example) Bishop Fellay would be responsible for supporting the proposal of a hybrid banner, including both Our Lord and Satan. 

 

Our Lord warned us: “I would thou wert cold, or hot.”  Apoc. 3:15.  By Bishop Fellay promoting the blending of the good and the evil masses, he seeks to achieve the “lukewarm” by blending the hot and cold.  Such persons, our Lord declares, He “will begin to vomit” out of His Mouth.  Apoc. 3:16.

 

 

It is Not New for Bishop Fellay to Seek Convergence between the Traditional Mass and the New Mass

 

This is not the first time Bishop Fellay has proposed a way to bring the sacred Traditional Mass nearer to the new mass.  For example, Peter J. Elliott, the local ordinary of a diocese in Australia, reported that he had lunch with Bishop Fellay, during which Bishop Fellay and his SSPX priests proposed that the Traditional Mass “be said or sung in the vernacular”.  http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/reform-of-reform-not-impossible.html#.VZ1o_F9Viko

 

 

Bishop Fellay has been Soft on the New Mass for a Long Time

 

Bishop Fellay’s lack of abhorrence for the new mass is not new: 

 

➢  Bishop Fellay attended a new mass and praised it afterwards, to a Cardinal.  http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/  Accord: http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm

 

➢  On a visit to Rome with Bishop Fellay, his two Assistants attended the new mass celebrated by Pope Francis.  http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/rorate-exclusive-pope-francis-received.html

 

➢  Bishop Fellay laughed and smiled while recounting his liturgical experimentation as a teenager (creating new “eucharistic prayers” for the new mass used by his conciliar high school), as shown in this video interview, beginning at about minute five: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XhhM8WXjFA

 

➢  Bishop Fellay stated that the new mass is “legitimately promulgated” (although nothing can be “legitimately promulgated” which is not legitimate).  See, Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble.

 

➢  Bishop Fellay asserts the strange novelty that our Baptism Character sometimes approves of the new mass.  See, Bishop Fellay’s October 19, 2012 conference, disc 1, about minute 76 (discs sold by Angelus Press); https://www.scribd.com/doc/180007280/Analysis-of-Fr-Themann-conference-pdf (pages 31-32).

 

➢  Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like the vernacular translation.  https://fsspx.news/en/content/23740