Rorate Caeli

Msgr. Fellay's 2010 Angelus Press Conference and Fr. Gaudron on "Light of the World"

The conference (more than 2.5 hours in length) that Bishop Fellay gave on the occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X, during the Angelus Press Conference held October 15-17, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri, can now be viewed on the website of the U.S. District of the Society of St. Pius X. (A summary can also be found on the linked page.)

The same website has also posted an English translation of the essay Light...and shadows in Light of the World written by Fr. Matthias Gaudron SSPX. This essay had been mentioned in some discussions on the Internet (including those in the Rorate comboxes) as providing a more nuanced view of the Pope's remarks on condoms compared to the official statement from Menzingen.


35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow! I just spent 2.5 hours listening to Bishop Fellay - remarkable what he talks about. Definitely Catholic in my books. Sure glad I said hundreds of rosaries for the Rosary Crusade.

I can't comment on the more 'nuanced view of the Pope's' condom comments though I dare say the condom issue will not be the primary topic of discussion if in fact the blog readers watch the videos.

Vox Cantoris said...

Watching these videos makes even more painful the reality of what we are facing and the need for the Society to be fully normalised to join in the battle fully inside the Church. Oh, how I would love to be a fly on the wall at a Toronto Priests' Council with them present!

The Church is in a great crisis. I found number 7 the most revealing. The contradictions on the issue of the priests who leave the Society, the Ordinations outside Germany and the work of the Apostolic Penitentiary with the FSSPX are revealing. His comment that an Italian bishop would "resign" if the Holy Father celebrates the TLM in public is profound. One side of me says, "Go, Holy Father, let's get it on" and yet I realise that as Papa Ratzinger is a calm and rational and gentle man and he does not act this way and as Peter he must preserve unity...but at what cost?

Cruise the Groove said...

Incredible!

I found it very startling to hear the information, from Bishop Fellay in the conference, that the Holy See gave permission for the FSSPX to administer ordination, to the diaconate, of several FSSPX men!
But apparently only within a window of two weeks!

This seems to fly in the face of "official" Vatican documents that state the Society does not have any standing in the Church and may not exercise any ministry.

If the Society cannot excercise any ministry, why are they allowed to ordain deacons?
And why are they only allowed to do so within a small window of time?
And if so, are there little windows during the year when the FSSPX are regularised, and other times when they are not?

Are they only permitted to ordain transitional deacons and not priests, during these small windows of time?

What is going on here???

Anonymous said...

SO some bishop would resign. Let them. They can be replaced with real catholics.

Anonymous said...

I just finished part 7...How I wish to see this on Primetime TV viewing...Wake up Catholics. Support the Pope and help the Society, which will help the CHurch. It is as difficult as it is simple..

Picard said...

As I said before: P. Gaudrons critique is much better than the one from Menzingen; and more, it contradicts in some points the one of Menzingen.

P. Gaudrons criticism is differentiated and accurate - the other one not!

(Well, it´s perhaps because he is German ;-)))

Anonymous said...

Picard: You touch on an important point. The popular statements from the Society are generally short on nuance, in order to retain popular support. The Society's theologians are far more nuanced. Of course it was ever thus in Mother Church.

Auricularis said...

I thought I'd draw readers attention to this post by one of the blogs linked to by Rorate, on the Pope's recent remarks on Bishop Williamson in his book "Light of the World". Needless to say I agree with his conclusion and its more refreshing coming from someone who doesn't appear to be trad.

M. A. said...

Auricularis, I agree. A very well-articulated point of view!

Felipe said...

Excelent news form México:

Anyone willing to translate the news? The Cardinal from Guadalajara Mexico has erected the first quasi-parish for the Tradition in Mexico and maybe Latam (except for Campos, Brazil).

The FSSP will be in charge.

http://creerenmexico.org/2010/12/cardenal-sandoval-erige-cuasiparroquia-personal-de-la-fssp-en-guadalajara/

LeonG said...

When The Vatican and its popes speak clearly & lucidly once more that will be the day when The Holy Mass in its authentic Latin Rite is the customary Rite of The Roman Catholic Latin Rite Church. While its liturgy is Latinless & protestant so will its modus operandi be confused and confusing.

Anonymous said...

I have listened to every audio file available over the past years on what Fellay has said. There is nothing new here. First of all a bishop should not be telling lay persons about the inner discussions with members of the Vatican or the Pope. In my opinion he is sinning against holy charity by making the audience laugh over the weaknesses of others. He pretends to defend the "true faith' but in reality, in my opinion what he has done here and elsewhere is to use these conference to quell his own conscience for having acting againt obedience when he accepted consecration to bishop without the approval of the Holy Father. He is human like anyone else. The terribel thing is that he is using he following to "proove his point." He is risking endangering their souls because he is getting them to laugh at Rome so they can feel comfortable in remaining somwwhat "outside" the Church. He is very clever in using arguments like they either love us or hate us or say we are of the devil. Well, the role of a bishop is not to encite hesitation towards the Pope or the Magisterium, but love for them and Jesus Christ. He should encourage prayer for himself that the Holy Spirit enlighten him to see the truth about what he is really doing. In a way, he is more dangerous that Williamson. All this has nothing to do with Sacred Tradition.

M. A. said...

Felipe,

Ordinarily, I would be happy to translate the news, but these Holy days are already so hectic. Besides teaching 2 CCD classes, I am now doing weekly translations for a priest's column.

God bless you, my friend. I share your happiness at the erection of a personal parish for Mexico! (I have for some time been an admirer of Cardinal Sandoval.)

¡Viva la Tradición!

Enoch said...

I very much agree with what anonymous stated at 11:49 today, especially the part where he (Bp. Fellay) is making the audience laugh over the weaknesses of others.

IMO, the SSPX maintains and bases their position not on the truths of the faith, but on the weaknesses and shortcomings of other Catholics. It's what they have always done, and Bp. Fellay is only following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre in this regard.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Gaudron briefly mentioned the "Williamson Affair," stating that Bp. Williamson was not in the SSPX when he converted to Catholicism and did so independently of the SSPX before entering the seminary of Econe.

And yet, the Pope says that Bp. Williamson went from "Anglicanism to Lefebvre." Maybe the Pope knows something that we don't. We only have Bp. Williamson's word that he actually converted. There's no actual evidence that he really did so.

Cruise the Groove said...

"(Bp. Fellay) is making the audience laugh over the weaknesses of others."
Enoch,
Is Bishop Fellay "making" them laugh, or are they laughing on their own, at his remarks and observations?
I watched the whole conference and it seemed to me that Bishop Fellay was making several points wherein there is one version of their [the Society] status in writing from the Vatican, and another version when one speaks to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and the Holy Father.
I do believe that this confusion manifested in nervousness and confusion, which resulted in the laughter.

And your comment on the Society basing their position on anything other than the salvation of souls is entirely unfair and wrong.

They may not always moderate their comments in nuance, but you can never state that they do not desire what Christ died for.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous December 15 11:49

I agree completely with you.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous and Enoch:

The SSPX is in business because of the shortcomings of the post Vatican II Church which turned hordes of people away from the faith.

Do you think Rome would now be discussing with the SSPX what we are to believe de fide of Vatican II if they believed as you do in regard to their character?

Have a blessed Christmas,
A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

Bishops job should include obeying the Pope and Magesterium ! Have Catholic Bishops around the world received the Holy Father's Moto Proprio, SP with kind words, support and implementation? I think this criticism of Bishop Fellay is a bit on the unfair side. I really don't think he likes going against the Church, Holy Father, or Magesterium as general principal. In fact he is probably one of the biggest supporters of the Pope amongst the lot of Bishops residing in Dioceases the world over. Just brush up on the lot over in Germany that decided to stay with "For All" rather than "For Many" because it is what they have decided over the Pope. For being backed into a corner for decades his statement of fact is just that. Statement of fact. And it is not that malicious. Just wait until they, the SSPX are regularized, we will then see if supports the Pope, Church and Magesterium the most throughout the world. And regularization will happen whether some people like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Felipe
Here is my translation. It probably won't be perfect, but I did live in Mexico for a very short time, including Tlaquepaque.

"The Cardinal of Guadalajara, H.E. Juan Sandoval Iñiguez has had the paternal generosity and the bravery (valor) to erect the first Personal Quasi-Parish for the faithful adherents of the liturgical tradition of the Missal of Pope John XXIII in his Archdiocese.
The said Quasi-Parish will be entrusted to the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and takes for its title the Personal Quasi-Parish of Saint Peter in Chains, and will be attended by the faithful who adhere to the same, according to that established in article 10 of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum.
From this space we send our most heartfelt congratulations to Fr. John Berg, superior of the F.S.S.P. for this milestone in the restoration of the liturgy and Catholic Tradition in Mexico and Latin America. His great diligence, perseverance, and charisma have marked this new passage in the history of the Church in the country.
Also, we congratulate and we thank the priests of the F.S.S.P. Fr. Ken Fryar, Fr. Romo, and Fr. Francisco for the work that has been realized recently in the chaplaincy of St. Peter Apostle.
But with the greatest joy, with all our hearts we thank His Excellency Don Juan Sandoval Iñiguez for his generosity en the erection of the Quasi-Parish. We know that fidelity to the Holy Father many times requires bravery and dedication, but we are sure that Our Lord will repay him fully.
We ask Most Holy Mary to accompany the priests and parishioners of this new Quasi-Parish on the road of their sanctification for the glory of God and of their Church, and that She protects, with her motherly mantle, H.E. Don Juan Sandoval."

Phillip (Felipe) Carrion

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Anyone willing to translate the news?"

The contributors of Rorate are ALL currently tied up one way or another in various matters (work, business, family, etc.). What the secular world calls the "Christmas season" (which should be Advent!) is a crazy time...

Sorry for the lack of updates. And, yes, we know about the good news in Guadalajara, the debates on Roberto de Mattei's book on Vatican II, the good bishop in Benin, the condom craziness in Goias, the rumors about Ravasi going to Milan and Rodriguez Maradiaga succeeding Rode, etc. etc. etc.

Enoch said...

A.M. LaPietra wrote:

"The SSPX is in business because of the shortcomings of the post Vatican ll Church which turned hordes of people waway from the Church."

To this I would responed that for some reason that we cannot really fathom, God allowed people to make the decision to leave the Church. The SSPX also left the visible structure of the Church, rather than stay and help, because Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he was treated unfairly.

Quote:
"Do you think that Rome would now be discussing with the SSPX what we are to believe De Fide of Vatican ll if they believed as you do in regard to their character?"

Firstly, rather than judging their character, I am pointing out their words. If some here take it as an offense against the SSPX, that's their choice. Regarding the current disscussions between Rome and the SSPX, it should be reminded that it was the SSPX who contacted Rome. The Holy Father, being a pope of Christian unity, of course wants to have the SSPX in full communon with the Church, just as he also wants Anglicans in full communion, too. That's one of the main roles of being a pope (to bring in all of the sheep who have strayed away).

Cruise the Groove. said...

Enoch,
I always thought that Roman Catholics who are not excommunicated, are in communion with Rome.
No?

Enoch said...

Cruise the groove, I don't understand how your question relates to my post. Could you please clarify?

Cruise the Groove said...

Enoch, I am referring to your following statement:
"The Holy Father, being a pope of Christian unity, of course wants to have the SSPX in full communon with the Church, just as he also wants Anglicans in full communion, too."
My point is, the SSPX, as Roman Catholics who are not under the censure of excommunication,are in communion with the Church.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

You can't fathom why people left the post Vatican church? The reasons have been given on this blog ad naseum. They range from a consecration that was not to be used (as clearly stated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent)to an heretical definition of the mass being corrected without changing the liturgy which inspired it.

If the SSPX did not stay and fight (as you think they didn't), do you know of some other group that fought for the Tridentine Mass? Should the SSPX not have contacted the Holy Father FIRST about freeing it up? Or do you believe it would have happened regardless of their initiative? After all Rome only knew that the Old Mass was not forbidden since 1988. Let's be real in our asessments. Why didn't a group sanctioned by Rome do it? Because unquestioning conformity was the price of their sanctions. What we Traditionals got from 1998 on was continuance of an indult that we knew was bogus (once the meeting result was leaked by Cardinal Stickler).

The SSPX has presented the Holy Father with a spiritual bouquet of 19 million known rosaries (plus unknown millions more since the May cut off date) for the Consecration of Russia. Should they not have acted FIRST? We have been waiting for 75 plus years.

A.M. LaPietra

David Joyce said...

First of all a bishop should not be telling lay persons about the inner discussions with members of the Vatican or the Pope. In my opinion he is sinning against holy charity by making the audience laugh over the weaknesses of others.

I think we have to understand that the SSPX needs to explain to its priests and faithful what the situation is and why it is acting the way it is - it needs to keep itself and its support united at this difficult time. Moreover, we live in confusing times, with our leaders doing the most extraordinary things, so people are naturally wanting answers from those who can provide them. They are keeping the discussions themselves confidential, which is the crux of the matter.

To this I would responed that for some reason that we cannot really fathom, God allowed people to make the decision to leave the Church. The SSPX also left the visible structure of the Church, rather than stay and help, because Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he was treated unfairly.

This is a bit of a caricature. Abp. Lefebvre wanted his work continued - this could only be done with the consecration of new bishops, and during negotiations before July 1988, this proved impossible in the view of the Archbishop (they repeatedly rejecting his nomination for a bishop during that year). He had absolutely no intention to leave anything - in fact, his way of helping was to form future priests for the Church in a way they had been formed for centuries. The alternative, by changing course as the Vatican was expecting, would be to "leave" his mission and stop helping in the way he knew best.

You may, of course, disagree, but one must appreciate the actions back in 1988 from the Archbishop's perspective to see why they happened.

Enoch said...

A.M. LaPietra asked,

"You can't fathom why people left the post-Vatican ll Church?"

Firstly, I did not say that I could not fathom why people left the post-Vatican ll Church. I did not refer to the Catholic Church as the "post-Vatican ll Church."
What I said was..."for some reason that we cannot really fathom, God allowed people to make the decision to leave the Church. This is completely different from what you thought I said.

David joyce, I understand the explanation that you provided regarding why Archbishop Lefebvre felt he needed to consecrate the bishops in 1988, but you've only proven my point by providing details about the why the Archbishop felt he was being treated unfairly. Also, there is no doubt that he left the visible structure of the Church, which included the lawful authority of the Church's heirarchy. This cannot be disputed.

There's something I've always wondered about. The Archbishop actually signed an agreement with Rome for reconciliation some weeks (or maybe it was a month or two) before the consecrations took place on June 30, 1988. But then the Archbishop then changed his mind, and decided not to reconcile. Why did he change his mind? I have to wonder if it was because of the hardliners in the Society (benefactors, priests, other bishops, laity) who did not want to reconcile. What do you think?

I doubt that Rorate Caeli will allow this post to go through, since it is not flattering toward the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

I thought the Vatican had recognised the Archbishop's action as not being subjectively schismatic, as the will to separate was lacking?

And isn't the Vatican aware of the state of de facto schism existing in vast areas of the Church?

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

My apologies for not quoting you as you would have me do. However I do not understand why you find it difficult to fathom God allowing so many people to leave the church after the problems I mentioned. The list of many problems as I stated earlier have often been mentioned by posters on Rorate.

The Archbishop said he left the 1988 signed agreement on the table because he could not trust who he was dealing with any longer. Did it cross your mind to ask the SSPX?

Are you serious about this blog not allowing comments on the SSPX like yours to post? They are mild compared to others. We don't have to agree with each other but we should be able to defend our positions.

A.M. LaPietra

Enoch said...

A.M. LaPietra wrote:

"The Archbishop said he left the signed agreement on the table because he could no longer trust who he was dealing with any longer. Did it cross your mind to ask the SSPX?"

No, quite frankly, it didn't cross my mind. Probably because I would like the question addressed by someone who is unbiased and not emotionally involved in defending the SSPX; in short, by someone who has nothing to gain or lose by stating the facts, if the facts can indeed be known, regarding as to why the Archbishop changed his mind suddenly.

I still think it's possible that he was influenced by the hardliners attached to the SSPX. I would glad to be proven wrong about this.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

Why don't you ask the FSSP for an unbiased opinion? Some of them were priests in the SSPX and switched in response to the offer by Rome.

A.M. LaPietra

David Joyce said...

I understand the explanation that you provided regarding why Archbishop Lefebvre felt he needed to consecrate the bishops in 1988, but you've only proven my point by providing details about the why the Archbishop felt he was being treated unfairly. Also, there is no doubt that he left the visible structure of the Church, which included the lawful authority of the Church's heirarchy. This cannot be disputed.

So if I cannot dispute he left the "visible structure of the Church", does that mean he stayed within some other (presumably invisible) structure of the Church? In other words, did he leave the Church or not? Clearly, I would maintain he did not, and the authorities in Rome have never treated the SSPX as a separate entity outside the Church, so where does that leave us? By demonstrating his fidelity to the teachings of the Church and tradition, rather than those abusing their authority (whether in Rome, France or elsewhere), did he not show us in his life and sacrifices what a true son of the Church is really made of?

Although the magnitude of the situation we find ourselves is unprecedented, there are examples of such cases in the past. Did St. Athanasius also leave the "visible structure of the Church" during his repeated times of exile? How about St. Joan of Arc at the time of her execution? Yes, I'm sure people can highlight difficulties in the comparisons here, but the fact remains that a person can be - for all purposes - visibly outside the Church, but is later recognised as a Saint, which gives us pause for thought.

There's something I've always wondered about. The Archbishop actually signed an agreement with Rome for reconciliation some weeks (or maybe it was a month or two) before the consecrations took place on June 30, 1988. But then the Archbishop then changed his mind, and decided not to reconcile. Why did he change his mind? I have to wonder if it was because of the hardliners in the Society (benefactors, priests, other bishops, laity) who did not want to reconcile. What do you think?

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps it doesn't matter. Just because he changed his mind, doesn't mean that the agreement per say - if he went though with it - wasn't flawed. He clearly reflected on his decision, and changed his mind, with or without influences within the society. Given the treatment of many traditional orders since 1988, one could say that the Archbishop was quite right to withdraw his support from the agreement. I would recommend Bishop Tissier de Malleray's biography on the Archbishop, which is (for its length) very readable and quite balanced, for more background on the events surrounding the consecrations.

Enoch said...

A. M. LaPietra,

Actually, the FSSP priests who are formerly SSPX did not 'switch' in response to the offer by Rome. You have it wrong.

Rather, after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops without a papal mandate, and also against the expressed wishes of the pope, certain priests of the SSPX were uncomfortable (some of them very much so) with remaining in the SSPX, so they went to Rome and threw themselves at the feet of the pope. Pope John Paul ll immediately set up the FSSP for them as a response to their request. But I expect that you already know this, A.M. LaPietra, but you were intentionaly misleading by saying that the priests switched as a response to an offer by Rome. See, this is the problem with extreme supporters of the SSPX: they do not have a problem with stretching the truth, while maintaining all the while that the SSPX is all about "truth."

Anonymous said...

Attn. Enoch:

You must be right and the SSPX wrong. But please explain why 45 years after their disastrous council the Vatican has entered into discussions with such an untruthful religious fraternity about what we are required to believe of it? You should contact Rome to tell them what you know so they don't get suckered by a bunch of religious phonies.

A.M. LaPietra