Rorate Caeli

Correcting misreports

The Holy See-SSPX doctrinal discussions are already very complicated in themselves - there is no further need to distort anything. Several news sources, for example, have stated that the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop B. Fellay, characterized "the Church" as "filled with heresies" in his sermon for the ordinations of the United States district (for an Italian example, see this).

What Fellay actually did say, however, was that this was something mentioned in the Vatican halls by Vatican officials, which he repeated:
We will continue to say that there is a crisis in the church. Sometimes it’s really frustrating because in Rome they give the impression that everything is fine, and the next day we talk to them it’s not. These are the words from the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “But you know, it’s the priests, it’s the bishops, it’s the Catholic universities: they are full of heresies!” That’s what the the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith told us in June 2009!
[Merci à Ennemond.]

21 comments:

  1. They are full of heresies whichcome under the label of diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:32 AM

    http://www.fecit-forum.org/forum.php?x=1&id=2742

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can this be confirmed from an independent source?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:18 PM

    I can't help thinking that Bp Fellay ought not to have named an actual individual as the source of this comment.

    I don't doubt that it was said by the Secretary and that this admission is important, but it would have been sufficiently credible and powerful without naming him. Naming him - and thus exposing him to the attacks of those who hate or fear the aim of the re-union talks, and scaring the timid who see the talks as a Trojan horse - might make others more cautious about being off-the-record frank with the Society.

    That kind of frankness is, I think, required for the building up of trust between the parties, and for letting the Society see that at least some people consider the Society to be part of the solution to the problems in the Church, not another one of the problems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That some bishops might be modernist heretics; who-would-have-thought!

    The Road to Hell Is Paved With the Skulls of Bishops -- Saint John Chrysostom

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:33 PM

    It's good to know that the situation on the ground begins to make itself heard in Rome.

    One merely wonders when the complaining will become concrete action.

    Mundabor

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:39 PM

    The Church is in Crisis because of the HERESIES.

    What is wrong with that statement?

    Sounds correct to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Can this be confirmed from an independent source?"

    Because it is a proven fact that Bishop Fellay is liar?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pascendi: What? That Fellay said it? Or that the Secretary of the CDF is said to have said this in 2009? For the first, just go to the audio, also provided by DICI; for the second option, you really would have to know all involved in that particular discussion and ask them - in any event, why would Fellay make something like this up?...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:37 PM

    Did the SSPX ask you to post this 'correction'?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous2:46 PM

    In some ways, this starts boiling down to a question of tactics -- to go after heresy with a sledge hammer or to marginalize it item by item.

    There are good arguments on both sides of that practical question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did the SSPX ask you to post this 'correction'?

    No, Anonymous, it did not.

    Also, it's not a "correction." It's a correction.

    It's also hardly a matter of controversy to anyone whose been paying attention for the past few decades that the priests, the bishops, and the Catholic universities are full of heresies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was in Winona and present when Bishop Fellay made these remarks which Rorate Caeli has quoted accurately. This bishop is a courageous man who is working valiantly to protect the Church and to preserve Her doctrines: he is in my daily prayers. Our Blessed Lord told us that we may judge a tree by its fruits; if all goes as planned, God willing, there will be twelve priests and thirteen deacons ordained in Winona next year: an abundant harvest in this time of famine.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous5:07 PM

    The Church has always been with heresies, all through the ages, full of people who are for or against.
    Welcome to LIFE... its not perfect. Get used to it, start praying to be humble and meek...
    Why talk about all that is wrong, there will be wrong until the end of the world.
    Even if it was all TLM there would still be things to pick and cry over.
    Lets accept what we have and pray for patience and truth.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous5:57 PM

    While it is a good idea to publish a correction, I think it was imprudent for Bp. Fellay to say who it was, exactly (even without naming the person specifically) that said these things regarding heresies in the Church.

    I thought that the details on dicussions were not allowed to be mentioned or talked about by the SSPX or Rome.

    Even though we all know that there are heresies practiced by some in the Church, the SSPX cannot help in dealing with these problems as long as they do not have canonical status in order to practice a legitimate ministry within the Church. Bp. Fellay can go on and on about how bad things are in the Church, yet he is ineffective in really helping out in a real way, without regularization.

    And as long as the SSPX insists that the New Mass is always sacriligious, and that the Church is trying to become the Church of the New World Order (as Bp. Fellay recently said regarding Assisi lll), they will not be offered regularization.

    The SSPX will have to become more prudent if they want an offer. Bp. Fellay mentions the importance of charity at the end of this talk. But he himself, and others in the SSPX have been guilty of a lack of charity. Until the SSPX understands that they themselves are not perfect, and that perhaps they need to change a few things, they will not be offered regularization. In meeting with the CDF in September, Bp Fellay would do well to keep this in mind.

    The Church needs the SSPX to work fully and canonically within the Church. The good priests of the SSPX are very much needed at this time. Let us pray that the SSPX will learn about the importance of humility before September.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To which Cistercians is he referring?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous7:37 PM

    JMJ has more than a few good points.

    I usually stay off SSPX topics, but I read the transcript of Bishop Fellay's sermon.

    Please do not take this as an attack on the SSPX as it is not meant to be, but I have been hearing the same stories since the days of Paul VI. These types of stories were especially prevalent during the seemingly never-ending pontificate of John Paul II.

    Pascendi, give a call to Cardinal Levada and ask him to give you the lowdown. Tell him you're a friend of Delphina's from Rorate. Then report back here and give us the scoop.

    Delphina

    ReplyDelete
  18. On the contrary, it is time to name names.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John McFarland10:35 PM

    Those of you who think that a Rome-Econe deal of some sort is the answer, and are worried that insufficient attention to diplomatic niceties might queer it, would be better advised to consider the larger point that Bishop Fellay was making, of which Msgr. Pozzo's remarks were just a part.

    The point was that he is uncertain that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is willing or able to speak with a single voice or act with a single purpose regarding to SSPX (or, one might ask, much of anything else).

    In making this point, Bishop Fellay also mentioned par. 19 of the recent instruction, which in my view is the clearest symbol of the doctrinal and practical impasse in which the hierarchy finds itself. On the one hand, the Holy Father has made clear that those who want the Old Mass should have it. On the other hand, in the manner of the Johanno-Pauline indult, par. 19 makes acceptance of the New Mass a condition of having the Old Mass.

    Can Rome's yes be yes and its no be no? That is the question that those who hunger for a deal should ask themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joe B1:28 AM

    FSSP owes its existence to SSPX. Most of the diocesan TLMs for at least twenty years after the council were colocated with SSPX - SSPX pressure. Now SSPX has succeeded in bringing Rome to the table to discuss serious issues that wouldn't be discussed otherwise. Was FSSP or any other regularized orders able to do that?

    Anyone who thinks SSPX hasn't been a huge help in the battle against our tradition-robbing banditos is in denial of the post-Vatican II history of the TLM, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mark VA11:19 AM

    The fact remains that while the SSPX chooses to remain in an ambiguous condition regarding its full communion with the Catholic Church, it continues to criticize the Catholic Church, and present itself as a defender of Catholic orthodoxy - all three at the same time.

    Common sense and history suggest that the longer the SSPX chooses to remain in its present condition, the greater the probability that this critical posture will become an organic part of its identity. Or does this group think it's somehow immune from this well known process?

    ReplyDelete

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.

_______
NOTES

(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!