Rorate Caeli

Rumors, CHECKED!

This is kind of confusing... We hope to comment more later this week on the conference of the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bp. Bernard Fellay, in Denver last Sunday, but it is very hard to depend on reports of what may have been said. If there is an audio file available somewhere, please link to it in the comments below.

There are a few important points in the report so far available here, upon which we intend to comment later. But there are a couple of curiosities which must be highlighted:

Thus, the 15th of September was the last time that there was communication between H.L. [Fellay] and Cardinal [Castrillón] Hoyos, or anyone officially associated with Rome for that matter. It was a 2-day meeting, lasting 5 hours in toto.

[The conference reporter inserts this comment:] This crushed numerous rumors of “secret phone calls” and “meetings” that have allegedly been happening between September 2005 and now, February 2006.

H.L. [Fellay] did mention that before the meeting of Cardinals the week prior Cardinal [Castrillón] Hoyos had called Menzingen (the SSPX world headquarters) to ask for “prayers” for the meeting.

This is curious. If there were no "secret" meetings, then why this mention of the September meeting, which had been unknown to all Catholic watchers (my guess is that this is a reference to the November 15 meeting)? And further, if there were no secret meetings, why did the Superior-General himself say in his Candlemas sermon in Flavigny that he had indeed met Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in his apartment in November 15, 2005 (perhaps the reporter of the Denver conference heard "September" instead of November)? We count at least two previously "secret" meetings, "ridiculous rumors", unknown or dismissed as "mere rumors" confirmed by the Superior-General himself, at Candlemas (November meeting) and Denver (a previous September meeting, if the report is accurate) -- or, if the Denver report is inaccurate, at least one two-day-long meeting in November.

Then, though the reporter dismisses as absurd the "secret phone calls", what was the character of the phone call made by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos to the Superior-General? Wasn't it a call of an "extremely discrete" nature, as reported last Friday? It is true that in his article Tommaso Debenedetti mentioned rumors of possible calls between the Pope and Fellay, but (1) he made it clear that they were weak rumors; (2) he made it clear that what mattered was the spirit of great closeness of those in the Holy See who are responsible for these talks and the Fraternity (the Pope himself and his personal representative for all Traditionalist issues, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos), closeness reflected in this personal rapport between the Cardinal and the Superior-General. Or does anyone doubt that any direct calls of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos' to the Superior-General are made with the Pope's full knowledge and approval?

The rumors may have not been entirely confirmed, but anyone who usually follows this news must be amazed at how many rumors have been confirmed so far (this degree of "rumor-confirmation" is unparalleled for any kind of Catholic news). The August meeting, the November meeting, the talks of an Apostolic Administration, the talks of phone calls between the Vatican and the FSSPX, some kind of petition for the lifting of the censures (or excommunications, whatever one wishes to call the action -- see here), the Papal-Curial meeting of February 13 (of which there had been rumors at least since early January)-- each and every one of these were first "rumors", absurd rumors even, before being confirmed. Is there a pattern here? We report, you decide...

There are clearer and clearer indications that there will be no "reconciliation" in the near future (the last letter of the District Superior of France for the FSSPX is a surer sign of this than all conferences of the Superior-General put together), if anyone cares for this blogger's opinion. But if one wishes to dismiss all "rumors" as implausible, then one denies the very fact that so many of these rumors have ultimately been proven to be true.

*Thank you, Stephen Heiner, for this timely report.


  1. I think you are making too much of the rumours and their accuracy. From all other sources it is clear that neither Fellay nor the Holy Father have come to any agreement regarding Vatican II. So what the Bishop said in Colorado is exactly what the state of affairs is: barring some unilateral action on the part of the Pope.

    Just because one wants to talk to the other does not mean that either wants to sell out to the other!

    Here politics are moving faster than ideologies. It is clear that both would want an agreement on their own terms, and neither wants to comprimise on their central points. The Bishop is entirely on solid doctrinal grounds, and the Pope seems oblivious to anything above the political order. On that basis, barring something truly 'liberal' from the Pope (I mean unilateral benificence), there won't be any agreement. But that would put the Pope in an bad position with the Orthodox. Because how can you craft any agreement with them, if you are not even going to admit a council (Vatican II) which was not infallible is not binding ?!

    We need to pray for the Holy Father too loose so much worldly ambition, and gain holy ambition!

  2. Of course I meant "lose"!

  3. It seems like everyone, except those sspx'er that are swallowing the line from Fellay and Schmidberger, know about the talks between Heir fellay and benedict.

    That is why the top guns in the sspx are so suddenly adamant that the novus ordo "mass" is valid.

    The way is being paved for the eventual sellout of the sspx to the vatican ii church.

    In fact there is a picture of schmidberger warmly shaking hands with benedict.

    But how would Lefebvre view the novus ordo church today? Let's listen to him:

    "I have summed it up to Cardinal Ratzinger in a certain words, of course, because it is difficult to sum up this whole situation; but I said to him: 'Eminence, see, even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us a certain self-government in relation to the bishops, even if you grant us all the liturgy of 1962, if you grant us to continue the seminaries and Society, as we do it now, we cannot collaborate; it is impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you, you work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person, and of the Church, and we, we work for its Christianization. They cannot be in agreement.' Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He has left the Church, they have left the Church, they are leaving the Church. It is sure, sure, sure." (Archbishop Lefebvre 1987)

  4. Well, New Catholic's fine post and my uppity "Neo" comment have made the "Neo" bigtime--Amy Welborn!

    May it bring a lot of new readers here. Neos and Trads alike will learn a lot.

    (join link sections and paste)


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!