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
In particular, Bishop Fellay declared his support
for the idea of
introducing the Traditional Offertory into the new
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,
will begin to vomit out of His Mouth. Apoc. 3:16.
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
be said or sung in the vernacular.
Bishop Fellay’s lack of abhorrence for the new mass is not new:
legitimately promulgated(although nothing can be “legitimately promulgated” which is not legitimate). See, Bishop Fellay’s 4-15-12 Doctrinal Preamble.
what needs to be correctedin the new mass are things like the vernacular translation.