Rorate presents the following translation of an article published on Summorum Pontificum Observatus on January 10, 2011. Assuming that this report is accurate, Msgr. Fellay's speech on the evening of January 9, 2011 was greatly different in tone, compared to his homily on the morning of the same day. Emphases mine.
Yesterday evening, Sunday , January 9th, at the Maison de la Chimie, rue Saint-Dominique, Monsignor Bernard Fellay, Superior General of Saint Pius X Priestly Fraternity (FSSPX), as usual, gave the last of the speeches at the conference organized by Abbé du Chalard (Courrier de Rome) and the Saint Pius X Institute. In order to understand the significance of this exercise, we should bear in mind that Monsignor Fellay here expresses himself publicly, knowing well that his words will be reported and commented upon ad extra, but he does it paradoxically enough by employing the language he uses for internal use, with connotations, and directed at his priests.
He answered the successive questions posed to him by abbé Lorans, by extending successive responses that certainly were very much focused on the Fraternity, but the tone of which may be summarized in the following way, considering the points seemingly most relevant to the listeners, who sometimes were quite surprised:
- On the subject of the foundation of the Priestly Fraternity by Mgr Lefebvre, Mgr Fellay insisted on the Founder’s original wish being that of “making priests”, even before that of responding in a militant way to the crisis of the Church.
- As for the crisis and its present developments, Mgr Fellay criticized very incisively Assisi III, as he had done earlier in the same morning during his sermon at St-Nicolas du Chardonnet. (See Rorate's post on this sermon. CAP) Noting however that Assisi II was better than Assisi I, he pronounced an ideal hypothesis for Assisi III, which he himself did not think would happen (the pope could ask his guests to convert themselves) and he drew no consequences out of this (“we will see what this will provide [us] in the discussions”).
- Regarding the doctrinal discussions taking place in Rome, he insisted heavily upon the “unbelievable” progress that they represent in themselves. Rome never debates over its Magisterium. It is a thing unheard-of. However, Rome has agreed to a debate over the Council, because it is not infallible. That is why the FSSPX “holds the contract”: an event of such a dimension requires peace and serenity. FSSPX thus “tacitly” exempts itself from attacking as it did in the past. But the war against Modernism continues and most important of all – we must not believe that “everything has been done” ("tout est arrive").
- On the subject of what the FSSPX may give to the Church: Mgr Fellay, evoking a retreat that he preached in Albano for 30 Italian diocesan priests, indirectly underlined the positive aspect of the Motu Proprio (asking that one should not criticize it). The priests who return to the traditional liturgy also return to the traditional doctrine, but they return from afar. And to drive home the point: there are – especially in Rome – very good people, priests, bishops and even cardinals.
The highest point of this discourse of “openness” was the citation of a conversation that Mgr Ranjith, now a Cardinal, had had with him. Mgr Ranjith said to him that one would probably have to wait 20 years for the liturgical reform to give way to the Traditional Mass. Mgr Fellay comments: there will be intermediate, “gradual” stages, where everything will not be good, it is true, but neither will everything be bad.
