Rorate Caeli

Fellay: "We are at the point of departure"

The Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, ordained priests and deacons this morning in Écône, Switzerland. In his sermon, he included some comments on the current situation in Rome-SSPX relations:

And when we celebrate this Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we cannot not think of Rome. And we cannot forget this love that our founder had for Rome, and that he wished and that he wanted to inculcate in his children. We are Roman! And this we cannot put behind us! Even if we live in difficult times, even if we have to suffer from the Rome of today, this cannot at all weaken this true, effective and affectionate love for Rome, because it was the good God the one who chose this City to be the head of the Church. This does not mean that we will love the errors, certainly not, we suffer them. But one cannot let oneself, we can say, be put off by what is happening, at the point of giving up. No, it is necessary to maintain, which is what we try to do.

Certainly, you ask of me, 'What is happening with Rome?" If up to now we have said almost nothing, it is because we do not have much to tell you. Up to now, things are at a stage, we can say, of full stop. In the sense that there have been tos and fros, there have been exchanges, effectively, dealings, proposals, but we are at the point of departure. The point of departure in which we had said we could not accept, we could not sign. We are there, that is all. We see, on one hand, this situation getting complicated, it has been two, three years I have said before, in Rome, before the contradiction. Since 2009, I have said it, and I repeat it, and well that takes place every day. It is the state of the Church, what do you want? There are those who try, who wish to move further, we can say, on Progressivism and on the consequences of Progressivism. There are others who wish corrections to take place. And we, in the middle, we have become as a ping-pong ball, that everyone hits. We know that in the end, in the end, the Church will find herself again, and to us belongs this yearning of not being satisfied with a certain, let us say, comfort. With a situation that is simply not normal. We cannot become in the end, because we are in a situation in which we do whatever we want, used to consider the state in which we find ourselves as normal. This isn't true. Simply not true. It is normal that we seek, with respect for all conditions that are necessary, evidently, to recover this title, that is ours, to which we have a right, of Catholics. This doesn't mean that we must place ourselves simply in the hands of the Modernists, this has nothing to do with it.

But it is a difficult situation, difficult, everything seems electric, we see clearly that the devil runs unchained on all sides. And therefore, this is the time for prayer. It is a difficult moment. To us, about us, all sorts of things are said. Dear God, the only thing we wish for is to make God's will, that is all. The will of God is expressed in facts. ... It is also clear that we cannot bring good to all the Church than by remaining faithful to this heritage of the Archbishop. From which come these famous, I don't know, "conditions", "assurances", that we have presented several times, that must ensure that the Society will remain what it is. If, at a certain time, a collaboration is conceivable, when, how, well the circumstances will show it. (Audio: DICI)


  1. Again,
    Sqaure one.
    Someone in the Curia torpedoed the Holy Fathers will.

    I wonder....

    All this makes mr feel closer to the Society and the the Church.

  2. Bartholomew12:10 PM

    God bless you, Your Excellency.

    We pray, do penance and persevere in the Faith of Saints Peter and Paul.

  3. Wasn't the official word from Rome that the Preamble would be made public if it was rejected, or accepted.

    It has been rejected and...?

  4. Francis12:19 PM

    Who are we allowed to praise / criticize in this post? The Vatican or SSPX? Are we allowed to discuss negatively about the Vatican? I just want to know so that I don't waste time writing something that's only going to get deleted anyway.

    Maybe you should start writing exactly what kind of comments you want at the bottom of your articles! That way you don't have to do it in the comment section every time, and people won't have wasted their time writing out their opinions which only get deleted anyway.

  5. Well, as you can see, Francis, you may criticize us at will...

    As for the Holy and Apostolic See and the SSPX, it is not a matter of praise or criticism, but, as always, one of tone. It has always been a matter of tone.


  6. I have been incredibly impressed by the faith, piety, and responsiveness of Bishop Fellay. He is truly a man of God.

    Increasingly, I do not think we should mourn the lack of any agreement, if that is what to be. It simply proves that it's not meant to be at this time. Better the SSPX remain intact and viable in the current state than some type of agreement that could effectively divide and scuttle it.

    And let's not go on about the Curia hampering the Supreme Pontiff. Remember, the Supreme Pontiff is sovereign.

  7. It sounds as if the "time for reflection" Bishop Fellay was given by the CDF is not going to change anything, and the next move has to come from the Holy Father. Perhaps he has it in mind to put the Ecclesia Dei commission in a more prominent role in this process. I don't believe His Holiness is going to give up.

  8. Anyone who truly wants to be clear about the future of The Society with Rome should read Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta's 15 page document on the Doctrinal Preamble. This is the time to be patient and persever while modernist Rome crumbles away. This is not the time to be faint-hearted. Deo Gratias.

  9. LeonG, you do know that that document, made public over 2 weeks ago, was written in October 2011, right? This does not mean it would not be written the same way now, but this information is important as a matter of record.

  10. Noiosa1:15 PM

    When one gets lost on a journey it is a good idea to return to the point of departure. One may find a shorter, swifter route next time.

  11. Angelo1:19 PM

    I left as an adherent of the SSPX in 1988. I have lived my life for the day of a reconciliation. I was sure that day had come. Cardinal Levada as an Archbishop in California prohibited Latin Tridentine Masses in his Archdiocese. And he would not budge on this prohibition. Ironic that he was the head of the reconciliation process with the SSPX. I wish Bishop Fellay would say whether or not Levada is the one who threw a wrench in all this. Lets continue to pray.

  12. Pray for the pope.1:20 PM

    To me it seems that the Blessed Mother intervened on this to show the willingness of the parties of good will, and allow the villains to expose themselves. Thus keeping the pope and the Society (who surely have gained much merit and blessings over their sincere efforts) guiltless. So right's all on you, Levada. Wouldn't want to be you or any other of you pope wannabes.

    This interference by Levada who is NOT THE POPE will only further the cause of Tradition and in a big way. Much bigger and much faster than throwing open the doors to the Society. Just stand back and watch Heaven operate in our own lifetime.

    Maybe all the rebellion around him will finally force this aged pope to consecrate Russia. Something has got to make him scared enough to ask Heaven for help instead of relying on his confreres and himself.

    Square one is not a bad thing. Deo gratias.

  13. John McFarland1:22 PM

    Dear Cruise,

    What the Pope really wants, he gets.

    Either the Holy Father has lost his nerve on a no-strings regularization, or he never really intended it. Nor can we be surprised or shocked. He is a life-long progressivist, after all.

    As often when Bishop Fellay yet another time demonstrates his transparent faith, honesty and good will, I am amazed at how many people are prepared to believe that he is prepared to sell out tradition.

  14. It seems like 1988 but the roles are reversed.

    The Holy Father was about to recognize the Society but pulled out after considering, or was persuaded to pull out.

  15. NIANTIC1:28 PM

    Rather sad but in a way not surprising. The Holy Father has sovereign power BUT many,many bishops and priests disobey him and do not give a thought about it.They do their own thing and follow their own agenda, which often seems to be non Catholic and non Christian, and the Pope seems to be powerless to correct this. The Pope may want to wish for a reconciliation but if the modernist curia does not want the same then it is not going to happen. That is how I see it.
    Of course things were not perfect prior to Vatican ll but the Popes had real power and authority and, by and large, were able to govern the Church as Vicar of Christ. All that was officially given up when Paul Vl gave up the Tiara. Not only was the Liturgy destroyed but so was the governance of the Church. Lord have mercy.

  16. Francis1:28 PM

    NC, that's a different "Francis" than I who post here frequently. Just wanted to let you know that.

  17. Julie Collorafi1:34 PM

    Being an American, oftentimes my view of Church politics is colored by American politics, and this week has been a week of staggeringly disappointing developments.

    First, the talks between the SSPX and Rome which seemed to be at the point of culmination, suddenly broke down.

    Second, contrary to all expectations, our Catholic Supreme Court Chief Justice (who it is rumored, sometime attends the Latin Mass) upheld Obama's massive, draconian Socialist Leviathan overhaul of healthcare in America.

    I'm feeling a little stunned by both mysterious events but can only conclude that in both the spiritual and secular realm, it's back to square one and much more prayer and hard work is going to be required of each of us to bring about effective change and renewal.

    Chin up. Eyes open. Rosary and missal in hand. Let's roll.

  18. Enough already.

    The Pope has the power to put an end to this thing if he wants to and it seemed as if he wanted to, or everyone in every information outlet worthy of consideration lied to us or was massively decieved.

    Mr McFarland,
    Could you please provide non SSPX resources that state that the Society can validly absolve sins?

    I am a simple man and cannot understand Canon Law's "common error" clause, but rather an official and direct non SSPX statement that their absolutions are valid.
    Thank you.

    1. Cruise you are not being reasonable, either common error, probable doubt etc.. allow for supplied jurisdiction or they don't. All manuals of moral theology say they do and one can easily surmise that this situation exists with the SSPX faithful. The same goes for a state of.necessity either there is one or there isn't. At the end of the day your post is a veiled ad hominem, rather than focusing on the argument you are focusing on who makes it. Either the SSPX is right or it's wrong and this fact doesn't change by who does or doesnr admit it.

  19. P.K.T.P.1:46 PM

    Here is the key:

    "It is normal that we seek, with respect for all conditions that are necessary, evidently, to recover this title, that is ours, to which we have a right, of Catholics. This doesn't mean that we must place ourselves simply in the hands of the Modernists, this has nothing to do with it."

    Amen. Pray, everyone, pray.

    SS Peter & Paul, pray for us.


  20. John H1:49 PM

    You all are missing the elephant in the room. It is not Rome, nor the Curia. Twice now the papers have reached the last stage, and each time, a document leaked by SSPX members from +Williamson's corner of the world has torpedoed the talks. This is being caused by the division within the Society. The ball is in +Fellay's court, not the Pope. The latter must be tired of the pretence of approach followed by the running away.

    1. What documents were so terrifying that they torpoeded the talks? Nothing that was leaked was that drastic and these things were true whether Rome knew about them or not, better that it found out now and not before an agreement. I don't think the leaks torpoeded it, I think either the curia interfered or the pope isn't as great a friend of tradition as people think.

  21. "because it was the good God the one who chose this City to be the head of the Church."

    Am I the only one who has a problem with this sentence? I thought Peter was the Rock, not Rome.

  22. Louis Borbon2:18 PM

    MAY BE was the Pope himself the one who ordered a clause in the agreement that now Fellay finds unacceptable. Something like asking saying that they are Sorry for 30 years of No communion with the Church or something like having to accept tha the Council was protected by the Holy Spirit from Dogmatic and Moral heresy. We must NEVER EVER forget what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote before:

    --Cardinal Ratzinger (Letter to Lefebvre, 1982): “In the third paragraph you speak of "statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church." Then you list three texts of the Council incompatible, according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an "etc." Here your position even more radical… But you cannot assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you are DEEPLY DEPARTING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH"

    ---Cardinal Ratzinger (January 20, 1986): "Of course you can express your anxiety over certain interpretations that may have been given to various texts of the Council; you may also legitimately criticize such interpretations. But it is not possible for you to call into question the authentic doctrine of the ecumenical Second Vatican Council, the texts of which are magisterial and enjoy the HIGHEST DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY"

  23. Canisius2:18 PM

    Dear All

    It is incredible how people read what they want to read without seeing the facts.

    The halt to the Preamble modified by the Society and sent to Rome, and the new imposition of the previous Preamble to Bishop Fellay in the meeting at the CDF, was a movement of Pope Benedict XVI, not of Levada.

    In this case is clearly that the Pope directly controls the discussions and put the doctrinal conditions for the SSPX to a doctrinal common assesment between the parties and their reintegration to the Caholic Church, that is the Church of Rome.

    The Pope knows perfectly that before anybody, first of all, the Preamble must be admissible to Rome, not to the SSPX.

    The new here is that the same Pope who has rejected all the modification made by the SSPX to the Preamble has proposed, again, a canonical drees to the Society, in a paralel road to the doctrinal discussions.

    In my opinion, in the mind of the Pope, the traditionalist positions regarding the Council -the position of people such as Galarreta, Williamson and Tissier de Mallarais- are not only completely erroneous, are simply delirious. As there are many other crazy guys -of other tendencies- living within the Church

    The Pope has thrown a helping hand to a bunch of guys He believes as good people but completely confused regarding some doctrinal issues. And he is trying to save their souls from schism, error, and eternal condemnation. The problem is that lunatics such as Galarreta, Williamson and Tissier -and a good number of traditionalist of all kind- think that are they who are rescuing the Church from modernism and heresy.


  24. Melchior Cano2:22 PM

    "If, at a certain time, a collaboration is conceivable, when, how, well the circumstances will show it."

    Are things really as dire as everyone here is pretending? Bishop Fellay first states that it is not good to pretend the irregular canonical situation is normal, or desirable, and thus he went as far as he did. He's not saying anything has changed there, which means he still desires that canonical recognition, as an act of justice and pastoral care.

    Now, at the end of his statement, just before the quoted piece, he refers to the "assurances" needed (which presumably must be in the preamble, declaration, whatever). It seems clear to me that rather than looking at this as Bishop Fellay "leaving" the discussions, it is Rome who is doing so. If, for example, the new Vice President of Ecclesia Dei was able to present a text respecting those assurances, it seems that things would proceed. Am I the only one with that impression?

    And if that's the correct impression, then the time for prayer is merely stronger, and the ball is firmly in Rome's court.

  25. I think that the most possible scenario to explain what happened is the following:

    1) Bishop Fellay sends his doctrinal declaration to Rome; it is well received and informally considered by many people there (the Pope included) as a very positive development.
    2) The members of the CDF study the declaration and forward their conclusions to the Pope.
    3) The Pope considers the declaration to be 'sufficient' but agrees in that the use of the expression "errors of the council" is not appropriate for an official document of the Holy See, so he tells cardinal Levada to correct it.
    4) Cardinal Levada goes too far with his "correction".
    5) Bishop Fellay rejects the "corrected" version of the declaration.
    6) The Pope, tired of the incompetence of cardinal Levada and monsignor Pozzo, names ++Di Noia as vice-president of Ecclesia Dei, to take care of the matter.

    My guess is that ++Di Noia will prepare a "re-corrected" version of +Fellay's doctrinal declaration, keeping its substance but avoiding the use of terms which could enrage the liberals, and that this new document will be accepted.

    A man can dream, right?

  26. I have always believed in the wisdom and prudence of Msgr. Fellay.

    And I have always believed that he will never throw away the life's work of our beloved Archbishop Lefebvre.

    For those insiders that have attacked the Superior General, may they now say their "mea culpa!" and may they now have confidence in him and may they now be united to him.

    May the Good Lord protect the SSPX and the Pope from the enemies of the faith.

    Mater Ecclesia, Ora pro nobis!
    S. Ioseph, Ora pro nobis!
    S. Michael Archangele, Ora pro nobis!

  27. A good sermon, I hope it satisfies those who thought Bp Fellay was going to betray the society, that it was a conspiracy and the deal was already signed etc... Etc... That was as many of us have been saying, total nonsense.

    Now it will be interesting to see what the general chapter brings, what will happen to those who opposed a deal and whether the religious whose ordinations were delayed will be ordained in the end.

  28. RCConvert3:10 PM

    Cruis the Groove said...

    Could you please provide non SSPX resources that state that the Society can validly absolve sins?

    I am a simple man and cannot understand Canon Law's "common error" clause, but rather an official and direct non SSPX statement that their absolutions are valid.
    Thank you.

    Would that not be akin to asking for an official and direct non-Catholic resource that affirms the Catholic Church is the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation?

    When I was a Baptist it was only the Catholic resources that finally compelled me to convert. Similarly, it is only in reading the history of the Society that I have been moved to embrace its positions. My advice: go to the source (not another's interpretation of it!)

    God Bless

  29. Waiting For Pope Pius XIII3:11 PM


    How can somebody who maintains faithful fidelity to all that the Church proposed and held to as recently as 1953 be a lunatic? Was Pope Pius XII a lunatic? Or was he not then, but would be today, if we could bring him back to life and he held fast to what he held to during his papacy?

  30. Afriend3:15 PM

    "because it was the good God the one who chose this City to be the head of the Church."

    Bishop Fellay is stating it as a metonymy:

    a figure of speech in which an attribute of something is used to stand for the thing itself, e.g. "laurels" when it stands for "glory" or "brass" when it stands for "military officers"


  31. Yes, I think ++DiNoia is key right now, to this and maybe other things, too. I have heard it said by a priest whom I greatly respect that ++DiNoia is one of the brightest intellectual lights in the Church right now, so he is someone to keep an eye on, and follow his thinking.

  32. Bishop Fellay said: "We cannot become in the end used, because we are in a situation in which we do whatever we want, to consider the state in which we find ourselves as normal." I agree, for the following reasons:
    1) to operate independently of the Holy See has caused many of the members of the SSPX to accept as preferable the principle of self-governance, which is in the end a Protestant principle;
    2) if the insistence upon self-governance continues, the SSPX could become in the end a kind of western version of the Orthodox Church in being separated from the Holy See, yet maintaining liturgical perfection & valid sacraments (truly schizmatic).
    3) Sedevacantist attitudes are a real concern within the SSPX. I maintain that the conditional ordinations and confirmations I have heard about, due to fears of invalidity of Novus Ordo ordinations/confirmations, only promote the agenda of the Sedevacantists who deny the Apostolic Succession of the current Bishops of the Church. It would be a positive move for the SSPX to declare publically their acceptance of the Apostolic Succession of the Bishops & Priests in union with the Holy Father. The Sedevacantists would never accept that and most would leave.

    Let's all pray the Memorare for Bishop Fellay -- he's in a very difficult position right now and it could prove to be a very tense General Chapter.

  33. This letter affirms what I had been thinking all along since +Fellay last left Rome with that wrench in the works. As I've said before, it was done to be mean. To me, it's like someone found a way to delay this Matter, to push it out as far as possible. Why? In hopes the Holy Father dies before the Reunion can take place because they can sense the lot of carindals out there DO NOT want the SSPX in the Church or at least want their ruin.

    We're not privy to goings-on, so can't say what's what, but if the Holy Father really wanted the SSPX back in the Church, why prolong it with all of this hassle and added red tape.

    Many say the Holy Father wants to heal what he was not able to do as head of the CDF. Well, does he really want to heal this, now that he has all the power in the world to do so, or is he stuck back in the 80s, wanting to finish this the way he wanted it to happen back then? It would bother me very much if the Holy Father wants that conclusion rather than an evolved conclusion for 2012. The SSPX and the Church have evolved tremendously beyond what they were in 1988.

    Angelo said, "Cardinal Levada as an Archbishop in California prohibited Latin Tridentine Masses in his Archdiocese."

    San Francisco to be specific, and we all know how he ran things there, along with gay Masses, etc. We just wonder about him and this latest roadblock with the SSPX.

  34. Erik said, "Let's all pray the Memorare for Bishop Fellay--he's in a very difficult position right now and it could prove to be a very tense General Chapter."

    Tense it will be but there is only so much to talk about regarding this because it's dead in the water already. With that bit of last-minute swill thrown at them, what room do they have to maneuver? If they say yes, then it's self-destruction. If they say no, then it will be spun forever the SSPX is a recalcitrant lot, full of pride not wanting to bend to Rome. This is how it will be portrayed. What is the SSPX to do?

  35. Timotheas4:37 PM

    Please folks! Where is your faith? Some of you sound like you are laying in the bottom of the boat with the Apostles. Is not God in charge and have the faithful Faithful been praying unceasingly as Catholics are to pray, and attending the Mass of the Apostles and offering up all that we have to give? Do we not do all that is asked of us according to real Catholicism? I have witness the PEACE in the Society priests who minister to us where I live and Bishop Fellay certainly has it, doesn't he now. I am praying that we can all have that same peace which is not that the world gives.

    Let's not miss any calls to prayer such as the novena that starts tomorrow. God bless you all for suffering out of fidelity to The Faith. Not "Faith" but THE Faith. My family will NOT be participating in a Year of Anything Goes.

  36. John McFarland4:51 PM

    Dear Cruise,

    Nobody in Rome, up to and including the Pope, seems the slightest bit concerned about the validity of the sacraments as administered by the SSPX; and so you're not going to get a definitive answer any time soon.

    Since the correctness of the SSPX position strikes me as clear, I've never looked into the matter. But are there learned traditionalists or NOists who maintain that the Society sacraments are not valid?

    If so, and if you find their arguments more convincing than those of the SSPX, then you must in good conscience receive the relevant sacraments in the Novus Ordo.

    The only other thing that I would say is that it verges on blasphemy to think that Catholic faithful are risking hellfire by confessing to SSPX priests.

  37. Confused in California5:02 PM

    I think that there is a significant amount of confusion on all sides. This is not a confusion that has its roots in ignorance. No, all the participants are learned men of letters. On all sides. Further, all of them appear to be men of good will. On all sides. Let us remain positive, and not be negative. We know not the hearts of men.

    But, this confusion, it is very real. I will use myself as an example: Two weeks ago I was under the impression that religious liberty was condemned by the Church. And yet, some 10 days ago, my parish (and parishes around America) began praying the same prayer as part of a "Fortnight of Freedom", a prayer that (appears to be) a petition for religious liberty.

    The confusion that persons on all sides have is only natural.

    It is time that we cease petty arguments over secondary and tertiary matters. The primary matter is one of doctrine:

    1) What, exactly, is the doctrinal power and authority of the documents of Vatican II? Both collectively, and each document individually?

    Previous councils took the time to provide clear doctrinal statements of belief, so that all persons of good will could clearly identify what the council taught. For better or worse, this was not the case with Vatican II. There is no list canons, no list of anathemas, no creeds.

    In a word: was Vatican II only a pastoral council-- giving advice, insight, reflection, opinion to a world in need-- but making no doctrinal statements?

    2) What, exactly, is the doctrinal power and authority of Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors? Some have suggested that the syllabus itself, as an appendix to Quanta Cura, does not carry the same doctrinal force.

    Friends, I assert that the above 2 points are the real matters before us. Everything else is secondary.

    Only the Holy Father can provide clarity on these matters.

    I hesitate to suggest such a thing, but, if (practically) every Church in America is joining in unison to pray for a thing that is heretical and condemned as if it were not, and thus teaching it to be good when it is not, and the entirety of America's bishops are of one voice in the matter, teaching error as if it were truth... that seems to be something akin to a "state of emergency", at least in that geographic place

    It is my humble opinion that Bp. Fellay should request clarification directly from the Holy Father on the above matters, especially in regards to the doctrinal force of Vatican II. At long last, was it a Pastoral Council or was it not?

  38. A. M. D. G.5:08 PM

    Matt said:

    "What is the SSPX to do?"

    Kick the sand from their shoes and continue with their work.

    Perhaps now they will realize you can't deal with the devil. Rome must return to the Faith and not the Society to a modernist Rome.

  39. Erik said:

    "I maintain that the conditional ordinations and confirmations I have heard about, due to fears of invalidity of Novus Ordo ordinations/confirmations, only promote the agenda of the Sedevacantists who deny the Apostolic Succession of the current Bishops of the Church. It would be a positive move for the SSPX to declare publically their acceptance of the Apostolic Succession of the Bishops & Priests in union with the Holy Father."

    You're mistaken on SSPX's position about the new rites for Holy Orders. SSPX now maintains that the new matter and form as promulgated are valid, but that it is permissible to conduct an inquiry into the "intention" of the bishop conferring the order on a case by case basis.

    This manages to placate both "sides" — the Vatican, because SSPX maintains the rites are not INTRINSICALLY invalid, and the hardliners and worried laymen in its ranks because SSPX says there can sometimes be a "defect of intention."

    According to the norms of standard sacramental theology, of course, such an "investigation of intention" would not really be permissible.

    But the approach allows SSPX to have its cake and eat it, too.

  40. rodrigo5:28 PM

    The leaking of +Alfonso de Galaretta's Albano assessment of the September text has exposed the names of priests - in one case the priest-secretary to a very high-ranking member of the Curia - who have clearly been in friendly contact with the SSPX, advising on how to approach negotiations.

    This latest indiscretion is intolerable. Not content with undermining their own Superior General, the leakers now seem intent on exposing those in official positions of influence who have been engaged in sensitive communications with the Society. How does this help Tradition? How does this assist the fight against Modernism? How is this not, on the contrary, playing right into the hands of the progressivists, who will no doubt see to it that such men suffer?

    Do the +Williamson Fan Club just not care any more? When did "the ends justify the means" become a Catholic axiom?

  41. Dismas5:52 PM

    Perhaps we should all brush up on our ping pong skills? Here's a training video:

  42. NIANTIC6:04 PM

    I think that if Rome and the Society really have reached an impasse and everything is going to be put on hold, the SSPX ought to publish a detailed account of all that transpired in the discussions from day One. This would include all the proposed preamble(s).I think that all the Traditional laity as well as the Church at large deserve to know and understand the pro's and con's and the why's and wherefore's. Let the facts speak for themselves and put all speculation at rest. Pax et bonum.

  43. "What is the SSPX to do?"

    The SSPX is called to make an act of Faith in the office of St. Peter, instituted by Jesus Christ. That office, validly held by Pope Benedict XVI, is not the devil's office. Abraham made an act of Faith, and in that act of Faith God intervened with Grace with a solution in what seemed to be an impossible situation. The same could happen now with the SSPX if they made such an act of Faith. What is there to lose? God will intervene. In the end this is not our Church, but His.

  44. Anonymous6:13 PM

    As member of an FSSP apostolate, I've prayed mightily that this reconciliation occur, and have read close to every word written about it over the last nine months. Yet I'm astounded that Bishop Fellay, a man of great courage, would be rattled or thrown off his resolve by the obvious going-away grenade tossed by the likes of Cardinal Levada. I would have just sat back with a chuckle, and said, "thanks but no thanks, your Eminence, but I'll wait till the Holy Father returns from Castel Gandolfo, and you're back home in Rainbow City where you belong. Have a nice retirement."

    Surely Bishop Fellay sees Pope Benedict's appointment of Archbishop DiNoia for what it is, a desire to see this thing done, and done with justice. Why the hand wringing?

  45. Excellencies, and Superiors,
    As you know, our Superior General responded to the letter of the 16th March from Cardinal Levada who tried to impose the doctrinal Preamble of the 14th September 2011. By this document, dated 15th April, he wished to break free from the impasse created by this Preamble. According to several concurring sources, the new text seemed to satisfy the Sovereign Pontiff.
    On the 13th June, 2012, Cardinal Levada returned to our Superior General his text of April, but it was amended in such a way that it still took up, in substance, the propositions of September, 2011. Msgr. Fellay also made known to him that he could not sign this new document, which was clearly unacceptable. The coming General Chapter will permit the analysis of the entire dossier.
    Moreover, I inform all the members of the Chapter, that in virtue of Canon 2331, Paragraph 1 and 2 (New Code 1373) the Superior General has deprived Msgr. Williamson of his office as member of the Chapter for taking a position calling for a rebellion, and for his continually repeated disobedience. He has equally forbidden him to come to Econe for the ordinations.
    Finally, Msgr. Fellay has deferred the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrille and the Capuchins of Morgon, who were foreseen to have been ordained at Econe this coming 29th June. The putting off of orders was dictated simply by the wish of Bishop Fellay to be assured of the loyalty of these communities, before laying hands upon their candidates (cf. I Timothy 5:22).
    Be assured Excellencies and Superiors of my respectful and faithful priestly wishes.
    Fr. Christian Thouvenot

    At least Bp Fellay seems finally to be taking action with regards to Bp Williamson's hateful behaviour during these delicate negotiations. It is hard to see how the SSPX can continue without dealing with that particular elephant in the room.

  46. @Erik

    Then you agree completely with the Society of Saint Pius X because that has always been, is and always will be their policy.

  47. Louis6:35 PM

    "The Holy Father has sovereign power BUT..."

    Quite. It seems that the Pope, perhaps out of mere politeness, is very reluctant to use his sovereign power. It may be, though, that he truly believes that his authority is in fact circumscribed by the doctrine of collegiality, such that he has little or no power in disciplinary matters, but has power in matters of faith and morals only.


  48. Cruise the Groove,
    I believe John Salza has some good written explanations of the absolution issue. He is not a member of the SSPX.

  49. P.K.T.P.6:53 PM

    John H.

    In no way do I approve of the leaks, but the leaks did not sink this ship: Cardinal Levada and those whom he represents did.

    Also, the ship is faltering but it has not sunk yet. Yes, I dare to be an optimist about this week-end, even though I know full well that nothing will likey happen.

    I prefer to pray and hope that it will.


  50. This reminds me of the US district superior's assertion that obtaining recognition is simply a matter of justice. This is not - as certain enemies of the Society and of the Church would deceive us into believing - a matter of "compromising" for the sake of some superficial gain. The Society will remain what it has always been, whether the recognition happens or not.

    Those of you who belong to or are associated with the Society should offer prayers of gratitude to God for giving you such a clear-minded and clear-speaking Superior General as Bishop Fellay. I'm grateful and I have nothing to do with the Society!

  51. Pray for all priests.8:08 PM

    We do, Carl. Every Society member that I know personally gives thanks to God with every rosary bead for our priests and our bishops. All of them and we are so grateful for the leadership of Bishop Fellay. So very grateful.

    Everyone needs to be more understanding and more forgiving when a good and holy priest or bishop occasionally bares their teeth. Even a tame rabbit will bare it's teeth at you if you corner it and poke it with a stick. And we have (all Catholics) been abused, lied to and poked at for many years. It's those who did the abusing, the lying and the poking who are difficult to forgive.

    And God bless you Carl, for you humble, charitable and very honest heart.

  52. Jabba, your comment has been deleted twice. Do not insist.


  53. @ A. M. D. G. who said, "Perhaps now they will realize you can't deal with the devil. Rome must return to the Faith and not the Society to a modernist Rome."

    What? Are you saying that Rome is the devil? Are you saying Rome ist he seat of the Antichrist? Have the gates of hell prevailed? This thinking is sedevacantism, sir, plain and simple. Don't go there!

    As I've said before: it is not we (or the SSPX for that matter) who save the Church.

    Saints Peter and Paul, ora pro nobis!

  54. I am praying and fasting for reconciliation. But, some of the comments have me concerned. There is only one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. The Society did separate itself from that Church in practice, and now we are waiting for a reunion. NOTHING is known for sure as of the evening of June 29th. The sermon was for a particular group. I shall not suppose that there was a rejection until it is official, or, more hopefully, for the official reunion, if that is the case. I am assuming, however, that all leaks are from two sides who are poles apart, but do not want reconciliation.

  55. Tom said...

    "Then you agree completely with the Society of Saint Pius X because that has always been, is and always will be their policy."

    Could you clarify what you mean by their policy? Which policy are you referring to? I would imagine that they probably don't have an official policy to re-ordain & re-confirm people who were ordained & confirmed in the Novus Ordo -- but the tendency to question validity of Sacraments because they were conferred in the Novus Ordo does not build up confidence in the See of Peter among their members. But perhaps the re-ordaining & re-confirming wasn't as common as I was led to believe.

  56. I find it hard to believe that what was presented wasn't in accord with the Holy Father's wishes. Everybody is making him out to be more of a traditionalist than what he is.

  57. I'm an Orthodox Christian and have an honest question...
    I did not know one could be a Roman Catholic and not under the direct obedience of the Roman Pope. Can one truly be a Catholic "Man of God" (as many here have said of Fellay) while maintaining that current errors of Rome prevent one from being under the direct submission and communion of Rome?

  58. Aglaios, with all due respect... well, not really... pot meet kettle.

  59. Ferraiuolo6:57 AM

    Aglaios, it is more complicated than that. The Society of St Pius X and Bishop Fellay are under a situation of Canonical irregularity and not schism or heresy. So in one sense, yes they are not canonically recognised as any other Catholic group, but they nontheless uphold the Catholic Faith more than most who actually are under no pain of canonical irregularities! In a sense, it is a sign of contradiction.

  60. Ora et Labora9:05 AM

    I must say that I am disappointed with the lack of leadership from our Holy Father.

    I say it in all honesty, and with all due respect to our pope, but it is almost as if he expects things will just take care of themselves without him acting with the authority of Peter.

    All I know is that we need to have an answer before summer's end.

    This whole situation has drag for far too long.

    Mary Help of Christians pray for us!!!

  61. Janet Theresa12:02 PM

    I agree with Francis. I have seen a lot of criticism of the Vatican and of the FSSP on this blog, but a lot of other valid opinion is deleted. If it is a matter of tone then obviously the tone is for the SSPX. I and several others had been going to their Masses locally, thinking their was an imminent reconciliation, but have to say that the 'tone' from those attending the SSPX Masses didn't seem to support reconciliation and in fact they do not support a Latin Mass said here because the priest is what they call a Novus Ordo priest. Naturally we no longer attend because of that attitude. If you are indeed a Catholic blog, you will not delete this comment. If you do then I take it the only "tone" accepted on this blog is that which is not critical of the SSPX. For SSPX priests to be dissuading their members not to go to a Tridentine Mass because it is said in a Novus Ordo church by a young priest totally committed to the Latin Mass, in spite of strong opposition by his bishop doesn't augur well for a possible reconciliation, but as another blogger here wrote, the fight against the liberals will continue from within the Church, with or without the SSPX. Janet Theresa

  62. Claude Fimat2:36 PM

    If there was any move from the SSPX to finally
    compromise or make a step further to join the real catholic Church , it has been wiped out by the recent
    scandals of the Vatican. Does it make the Roman Church more illegitimate or is this a change of strategy
    on the SSPX side to avoid any further involvement in a risky time?

  63. St. Paul's supplicant9:50 PM

    Due to the world wide internet which enables the spread of deceptions and distractions while also disseminating information, we are beholding the excrutiating sufferings of souls being sanctified. At what point do we wonder if our ability to review this information is a privilege or prying into private lives.

    Our encouragement in the sermon of H.E. Bishop Fellay is his assertion of perseverance: "But one cannot let oneself, we can say, be put off by what is happening, at the point of giving up. No, it is necessary to maintain, which is what we try to do."

    St. Gregory the Great's magnificent papal guidance ushers forth Bishop Bernard Fellay toward the Vicar of Christ and beyond to the Gates of Heaven as he seeks the Will of the Holy Trinity which will lead him to Christ, Our King.

    Let us reflect on Pope St. Gregory's illumined wisdom from Matins for the feast of St. Mary Magdalene:

    "We should reflect on Mary’s attitude and the great love she felt for Christ; for though the disciples had left the tomb, she remained. She was still seeking the one she had not found, and while she sought she wept; burning with the fire of love, she longed for him who she thought had been taken away. And so it happened that the woman who stayed behind to seek Christ was the only one to see him. For perseverance is essential to any good deed, as the voice of truth tells us: Whoever perseveres to the end will be saved."

    May H.E. Bishop Fellay seek the Will of the Holy Trinity with the knowledge that the privileged Grace of state will be given to him. . .singularly. May all others support him with their humble sacrifices and prayers imploring Divine Mercy for the Holy Father and his faithful son, Bishop Fellay.

    St. Paul closes this communication with his own encouragement: "In all things shew thyself an example of good works, in doctrine, in integrity, in gravity." Titus 2:7

  64. Aglaios - To follow up on Ferraiuolo, I'd just add that Bishop Fellay and the Society as a whole submits to the pope, is obedient to him, and is in communion with him. But sometimes the pope has said and done things that they haven't been able to reconcile with what they recognize as previously and clearly the Church's lex credendi (doctrine) and lex orandi (worship), so they ignore the noise and go with what they know. They remain what they always were: simple, faithful Catholics. It leads them to take initiatives without canonical mandates that in a normal time would be unacceptable: But this is NOT a normal time. They press forward in the mission of their founder, confident that God will preserve them, make their work fruitful, and eventually bring about a recognition of what has always been the case: The SSPX is faithfully Catholic.

    I have no affiliation to the Society, but I am grateful to God, to Archbishop Lefebvre and to the Society for taking what action was necessary to ensure that our Gregorian liturgical tradition was not forgotten and destroyed, while not giving into the temptations to sedevacantist schism and heresy. They have courageously suffered the worst of the tempest and I pray that their vindication is at hand. They never left the heart of the Church, but they deserve a "homecoming" all the same.

  65. Anonymous5:10 AM

    maybe, the Holy Father should just pull out the Catholic nuclear weapon: Infallible Papal Declaration. Go through the documents of Vatican II,make infallible declarations/clarifications on the disputed documents. SSPX definitely then would accept this.
    Goodness, there are so many things I wish Rome WOULD make infallible declarations on: Limbo, Women Priests ( to silence the liberals), Baptism of Desire ( sedes deny this), Invincible Ignorance/possiblilty of Non Catholics Salvation, Officially declare Humanae Vitae infallible
    just a few on the top of my head

    Maybe it's time for a doctrinal council, so much confusion... Vatican III anyone


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!