Bishop Fellay: Restore Mass, End Crisis…

Bishop Fellay: Restore Mass, End Crisis…

If you would prefer to read the text of Bishop Fellay’s interview, rather than view the video, click here.

There are people who believe that the way to end the crisis in the Church is to improve Catholic schools. Others want a reform of the reformed liturgy – to make it, in other words, a “permanent workshop” which is the dream of dissenters.

The entire interview with Bishop Fellay is of much interest to those open minded enough to accept his down to earth assessment of the pontificate of Pope Francis to date. So, your thoughts on any aspect of the interview will be welcome. Bishop Fellay’s key point, however, is that there must be a restoration of the Mass before the crisis in the Church can be ended. Is he right?

Comments (34)

  • Miles Immaculatae

    Precisely. And that is exactly the reason why the Franciscans of the Immaculate are being crucified:

    December 6, 2013 at 7:42 pm
  • Lily

    What a lovely interview – Bishop Fellay seems a really holy man.

    I have thought different things at different times about the best way to end the crisis in the Church but having heard him on that video, I’m inclined to agree that the Mass has to come first, and then everything else will follow.

    I say that while at the same time thinking that the Consecration of Russia has to happen before the crisis will end, but I think the two things must be connected.

    December 6, 2013 at 10:30 pm
    • Vianney

      Yes I agree that Bishop Fellay is a really holy man. He is said to be the Bishop most like Archbishop Lefebvre and I once read that a couple of years ago he had arrived at an airport in America and there were a group of soldiers waiting to go to Afghanistan or maybe Iraq and as he passed by one of the soldiers ask him to give them his blessing. In the middle of the airport lounge the soldiers knelt down and he went to each of them and gave them his blessing. One of the people who was there to meet him overheard a lady ask a man “who is he” and the man replied “I have no idea, but he is truly a man of God.”

      December 6, 2013 at 11:37 pm
      • editor

        I cannot believe there are so few comments on this thread. Very disappointing.

        I’d heard that story about Bishop Fellay at the airport, except I heard it was one of the soldiers who made the remark about his being a saint.

        I’d like to bump into that man/soldier myself one of these days – grab my rosary from my bag and fall (or more accurately) struggle to my knees in the hope of getting some, at long last, recognition of my own sanctity. Trouble with being so humble is, people tend not to notice one’s odour of sanctity.

        Say nothing, Vianney. Absolutely nothing 🙂

        One of the most striking things about that interview, is the information which Bishop Fellay reveals about the Franciscans/Traditional Latin Mass situation. The numbers speak for themselves. This is, then, despite all the PR efforts to say otherwise, an open assault on Summorum Pontificum, and, therefore, on Pope Benedict.

        December 7, 2013 at 10:45 pm
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    I have learned under your counsel rightly not to say “Roman” Catholic. In return, could you please not say “Pope” Benedict. He is not Pope any more than Jimmy Carter is President of the USA. Cardinal Ratzinger resigned and is once more Cardinal Ratzinger.

    December 8, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    • editor


      I refuse to use the term “Pope Emeritus” or “Emeritus Pope” Benedict. This places a former pope on the same level as an ex-university lecturer. It normalises what Pope Benedict XVI did and for a pope to resign is not normal, and should not be encouraged with special titles.

      I said at the very start when he first resigned, that I would speak of him as I speak of ALL former popes. I say “Pope Pius XII” and Pope Leo or Pope Gregory the Great, so I don’t see why the former Pope Benedict XVI should be any different. I hope this clarifies things for you, because, with all due respect, I will continue to speak of the former living Pope as I do all his predecessors. If, of course, he had returned to being “Cardinal Ratzinger” then I would, as you suggest, use that title, but he dresses like a pope and was given the title “Emeritus Pope” so I think it is reasonable to class him alongside his predecessors – no more than that.

      December 8, 2013 at 1:51 pm
      • Petrus


        I completely agree. In actual fact, the analogy with former US Presidents is a poor one. Former presidents (and Vice Presidents) retain the title “President” (or Vice President) after they leave office. In fact, they are still addressed as “Mr President”. So, it’s not difference with Pope Benedict XVI.

        If we were ever to meet Pope Benedict, how should he be addressed? Was that ever made clear? I think I would call him “Your Holiness” but wouldn’t use “Holy Father”. I’d save that for Holy Father Francis!!!!

        This is an outstanding interview. As far as I’m aware, the Franciscans have had a large number of vocations, which is quite common for “Traditional” orders. I wonder what will happen now that the Traditional Liturgy has been banned.

        I think the Mass is key to ending the crisis, but as Lily said earlier, the Consecration of Russia is clearly a must. Perhaps as the Traditional Mass grows, the graces will bring about the Consecration?

        As I mentioned earlier, those orders with the Traditional Liturgy have lots of vocations. Clearly there is a “vocations crisis” in the Church which must be linked to the reformed liturgy. Restoring the Traditional Mass will certainly go a long way to solving the vocations crisis.

        December 8, 2013 at 2:14 pm
      • Josephine

        A happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception, everyone!

        I agree, that is a tremendous interview with Bishop Fellay. He must be a very holy bishop, indeed, outstanding in the Church today.

        I think that’s a great point about the Mass bringing the graces for the Consecration. I never thought of that but it makes perfect sense.

        December 8, 2013 at 6:46 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        I’m in full agreement with you concerning how to refer to former Popes, and I refuse to acknowledge Benedict XVI’s title of ‘Pope Emeritus’. In all discussions, I refer to him as ‘the Holy Father’, and I recently referred to Leo XIII as such, when I was talking with someone about ‘Rerum Novarum’.


        Re your comment on Jimmy Carter, you would in fact refer to him as President or Mr. President. No trace of an ‘Emeritus’ there is there? He is given a pension, government funded offices, security details and an official car- privileges only afforded to the President of the USA. Benedict is still ‘the’ Pope, just not ‘THE’ Pope.

        December 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        I would avoid using the term “the Pope” or “Holy Father” when referring to Pope Benedict XVI. He is not the pope or the Holy Father.

        I must admit I never use the term “the Holy Father” when speaking of former popes

        December 8, 2013 at 3:06 pm
      • editor

        Catholic Convert,

        It would not be accurate to describe Benedict as “the Holy Father” – we do not say “Holy Father” when referring to Pope Pius XII or any other previous pope. It’s “Pope Pius XII”, not “Holy Father”.

        When referring to Pope Francis, we can use the title “Holy Father” because that title refers to the present holder of the papal office. Pope Leo wrote Rerum Novarum – “the Holy Father” did not write it, because the “Holy Father” is Pope Francis.

        December 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm
      • awkwardcustomer

        But Editor,

        Former Pope Benedict is in an entirely different category than other former popes. He is still alive.

        The popes you mention, “Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo or Pope Gregory the Great”, died before their successors became popes. Hence it is right to refer to them by their full papal titles.

        But to refer to Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI while Pope Francis sits on the papal throne is to suggest that we have two popes. Which is impossible.

        December 8, 2013 at 11:42 pm
      • editor

        Awkward Customer,

        Pope Benedict XVI may be still alive, but he is not pope. That’s why it is acceptable to refer to him as Pope Benedict, along with his predecessors. It sure beats “Emeritus Pope” – in the humble opinion of this (very) simple gal, at least 🙂

        December 9, 2013 at 12:10 am
      • awkwardcustomer


        But it sound like we have two popes.

        How about ‘Former Pope Benedict’?

        December 9, 2013 at 12:18 am
      • editor

        Awkward Customer,

        I don’t see it as any big deal but yes, “Former” is fine.

        December 9, 2013 at 9:59 am
    • Vianney

      aren’t retired American Presidents still referred to as President?

      December 8, 2013 at 8:37 pm
  • catholicconvert1


    I believe te growth of traditional Catholicism will bring about the divine grace to fill the Church with true faith and obedience, not only to doctrine, but also heavenly orders, i.e Our Lady’s request a Fatima. The traditional Church is increasing in size and power by the day- just look at the stats for the SSPX, FSSP etc.

    December 8, 2013 at 2:25 pm
  • editor

    I have been so busy rushing around today that I forgot to wish everyone …

    a happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception!

    Anyway, to make up for my tardiness, and since this thread is unexpectedly terribly slow in taking off, here is a little light relief in the form of an hilarious blog. The gentleman who runs it, sent me the link in an email sent to congratulate us on this blog. He’s a scream. I’m trying to twist his arm to sign up for our discussions, so here’s hoping. In the meantime, take a look at his blog – it’s really comical. And don’t miss the bits about “traditional” Catholics in Glasgow. You just have to laugh 🙂

    December 8, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    • Josephine

      I visited The Society of Such Pious Gents blog and it is great fun! I really enjoyed it. The comments about Glasgow are really funny. In fact, everything I read (and I read quite a lot) is extremely funny. I’ve got it among my favourites now, so will be paying return visits.

      December 8, 2013 at 11:24 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    What Bishop Fellay said is just what I think

    December 8, 2013 at 11:33 pm
  • awkwardcustomer

    The restoration of the Mass alone cannot possibly end the crisis in the Church. Only the restoration of the true Faith, of which the traditional Mass is the perfect expression, can end the crisis in the Church. But how can this happen when the vast majority of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals do not hold the true Faith?

    Bishops Fellay’s interview, although pleasant and encouraging, illustrates for me a kind of disconnect in the Traditionalist view of the current critical situation. On the one hand I hear, and agree with, much talk about the catastrophic consequences of Vatican II, the falling away of the laity in unimaginable numbers, the devastation of Catholic life and institutions, heresies being uttered by the hierarchy right, left and centre, churches and religious houses closing, vocations falling to practically nothing….. I could go on, but you get the picture.

    And on the other hand, I hear talk of restoration, of the possibility of the Consecration of Russia, even of a new Pope Pius X to save the Church. And then this interview with Bishop Fellay, God bless him, claiming that the true Mass can save the day.

    In my opinion, humble as it is, there’s more chance of a cold day in hell than of this Pope, or of any pope chosen by the Vatican II hierarchy, consecrating Russia as Our Lady requested. But it will be done eventually. The question is – when? Well here’s a suggestion.

    When a terrible war has devastated vast areas of the planet, killed several billion people and reduced Rome and the Vatican to rubble. Then the few faithful priests and bishops who are left alive will somehow come together and elect a new pope from among their numbers. This true and faithful pope will then consecrate Russia, in union with the remaining bishops. Russia will convert and, somehow, that country’s actions will end the war in a spectacular way, spectacular enough to convert those who remain alive. The promised period of peace will follow.

    Former Pope Benedict’s pontificate was a false dawn, a blip in an otherwise downward trajectory. There is simply no sign whatsoever of a great swell of people turning towards Tradition. At best the Traditional groups are bumping along the bottom. Sorry to be so gloomy but what’s the point of baseless optimism?

    December 9, 2013 at 12:17 am
    • editor

      Awkward Customer,

      There’s absolutely no point in baseless optimism and I like your post a lot. Nor would I be surprised if your “suggestion” is, in fact, what happens. It certainly fits in with the part of the Third Secret already revealed.

      All that Bishop Fellay is saying, it seems to me, is that in the ordinary run of things, it is the Mass – upon which the world depends, as one of our priests often says, it’s the Mass which keeps the world going, hence the diabolical turn of events in the world today as the Mass has disappeared in so many places – so, in the ordinary run of things, it is the Mass which will lead to the restoration of the Faith. All that the Faith IS, is to be found “in a nutshell” so to speak, in the ancient Mass.

      And here’s a thought. Just as there are some examples of priests caught in e.g. the nuclear bombs in Japan in 1945 who survived thanks to their devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, perhaps similar graces will be available to those who cling to the old Mass in the chastisement to come. Well, you can’t blame a girl for hoping 🙂

      December 9, 2013 at 10:06 am
      • Petrus


        I think there’s every reason to hope that that will be the case. The example of the Japanese Jesuits is a good one.

        Also, Our Lady said “the good will be martyred” she didn’t say the good would be wiped out or annihilated. To be denied that ancient sacraments and the true Catholic faith is a form of martyrdom. We are experiencing this right now. The time will come when some of us will be called to martyrdom in the traditional sense. I have every hope that the Rosary, scapular, Traditional Mass etc will save us – individually and collectively – from the “annihilation”.

        December 9, 2013 at 10:31 am
      • awkwardcustomer


        Ah, but we are not in the “ordinary run of things”. Of course I agree that the Mass, the true Mass, is everything because it is the ultimate expression of the true Faith. But the title of this thread is ‘Restore the Mass – End the Crisis’, and while I agree that restoring the Mass WOULD end the crisis, I’m also certain that the men of the Conciliar Church will never do this.

        I used to think that the Vatican II reforms were essentially well-meaning – wrong – but well-meaning. But now I am convinced that there is evil intent behind them. Not all those who support them are necessarily evil though. Some are simply ‘going along to get along’. Others are ambitious, or simply lazy. But the hard-core Conciliarists really have abandoned the true Faith and are intent on replacing it with their new version. They are not well meaning, and that is an understatement.

        They will never allow Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary because that would mean Russia converting. And how could the proponents of an ecumenical, emptied out Catholicism which claims that all religions and none are pleasing to God, wish to see Russia converted to the true Faith? They don’t believe in converting non-Catholics and have said so, openly and repeatedly.

        How the coming conflagration will take shape is anyone’s guess. The global economy is in crisis, despite the lies about recovery, lies which conceal the fact that the world is up to its neck in debt. War is the time honoured solution to this kind of situation.

        But enough true Catholics will survive and in the end, Russia will be converted. Rosaries and Missals at the ready.

        December 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    • Petrus

      Awkward Customer,

      I think this is an important post and you make some excellent points. Well said.

      December 9, 2013 at 10:21 am
      • awkwardcustomer


        Actually, I’m a bit surprised that the scenario I described is being given credence. I was rather hoping for some convincing reasons as to why it is extremely unlikely.

        Having said that, I really do believe, sadly, that this scenario is almost inevitable. Meanwhile, there are three things we can do – keep the Faith, keep the Faith, keep the Faith.

        December 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    • Christina

      Your suggestion certainly fits in with much private revelation conderning the days preceding the period of peace promised by Our Lady of Fatima. As the scenario suggests that Russia will still be in a position to act after the Consecration, who do you think will be the enemy in the preceding devastating war? My nomination goes to Islamic forces.

      December 9, 2013 at 12:55 pm
      • awkwardcustomer


        I’m not sure about Islamic forces. No Islamic country has any conventional forces strong enough to seriously threaten the major powers. Pakistan is the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, but would be wiped out in a day if it ever used them.

        Possible theatres of war, on the other hand, include the Middle East and Asia, meaning China/Japan/North Korea. At the end of the summer we almost had a Western intervention in Syria, an attack on Iran being the ultimate goal. This action, which is still on the cards, would seriously threaten Russian interests from the south and could indeed set off a major conflagration.

        Meanwhile attention is turning to increasing tensions between China and Japan, with North Korea getting in on the act. Conflict there would again threaten Russian interests, but from the east.

        Why Russia, though? Do you know if anyone has ever commented on why God would use Russia as His instrument in all of this?

        December 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm
      • Lily

        There was very good coverage in the newsletter on “why Russia” recently. Russia was the first nation to publicly deny God, so that is why there has to be a public consecration. I suppose that God will then use Russia to show his power – maybe a kind of “reward” for them turning back to God through the consecration (that last bit is just my own opinion.)

        December 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    If the devil were not enjoying himself so much while trying to wreck the Church from the inside he would probably have men blow up the whole world. He took a time limit according to Pope Leo XIII, so I would guess Our Lord has sacrificed the Church in order to use up that time. Too few listened to the message of Fatima and the consecration has not been merited so it looks like it will go up to the end so that little time is left when the devil is thrown out.
    According to the Apocalypse Chapter XII, the dragon is thrown out of heaven (the Church) through the Blood of the Lamb and the word of their witness, and they loved not their own life in the face of death. It could be that good priests band together like St. Louis de Monfort invisioned and that they do something in the future. But then there will be little time left for the devil after he’s thrown out of the Church. He will call up the antichrist and try to destroy the world.
    Does he use that time right away or does he save it for a later time? Many prophecies say there is a period of peace before the coming of antichrist.

    December 9, 2013 at 8:55 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    The public consecration of Russia will be done, but, as Our Lady told Sister Lucia, it will be done and done late. It does seem that there are those in Rome who are pushing Fatima into the background as though it will disappear completely. It is not for nothing that Our Lady appeared also to Sister Agnes in Japan, which confirms what she said at Fatima.

    Reparation needs to be done and we need the Mass, the Rosary.

    December 10, 2013 at 8:31 am
    • 3littleshepherds

      For sure the consecration will be done. Maybe it prevents the coming of the antichrist. Our Lord said that He would not convert Russia without the consecration being made because He wants His whole Church to recognize that consecration as a Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. So the Pope actually making the consecration is a Triumph, that’s how hard it is to bring it about.

      December 10, 2013 at 5:10 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    There’s a new Superior General letter out. Bishop Fellay is calling a new Rosary Crusade.
    ” 2014 Rosary Crusade January 1 until June 8, 2014

    Goal: 5 million Rosaries 1) To implore from the Immaculate Heart of Mary a special protection for the traditional apostolate; 2) For the return to Tradition within the Church; 3) For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the consecration of Russia.

    Means: 1) Prayer and penance as asked for at Fatima; 2) Sanctification through the duty of state; 3) Spirit of sacrifice in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. “

    December 10, 2013 at 4:05 pm
  • Theresa Rose


    Thank you for alerting us about the new Rosary Crusade. It seems that others are taking notice of Bishop Fellay’s request.

    December 10, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: