Rorate Caeli

For the record
Confidentiality: like water through a sieve

Note: When this web log was started, with the aim of, among other things, providing Traditional Catholic news and views, there was a goal of staying on top of things. This goal still exists, but, in the past few months, it has been affected twice by the revolutionary behavior of leakers of private or confidential documents and the problems of conscience such behavior causes.

It must be said that we expected all kinds of things when we began this work, but not this kind of attitude. It is discouraging that the Traditional Catholic world has generated this kind of behavior: we are dealing here with some of the lowest forms of the human character. In governments, businesses, universities, courts we find more honorable and loyal people in positions in which confidentiality must be kept than in the Vatican (as the "Vatileaks" scandal reveals) or, for instance, in the Society of Saint Pius X. Below them flow sewers of lack of conscience and of disloyalty. And naturally there are priests involved... It is sickening and disgusting. It is unworthy of the Catholic name.

Like water through a sieve: that seems to be the value of "confidentiality" inside the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX). Last time important internal documents were leaked, they were about one month old by the time they were made public by the leaker(s). This time, it took only a few minutes, or hours, for a very relevant confidential internal document to appear in the usual Sedevacantist, crypto-Sedevacantist, or Sedeprivationist forums and venues. 

Anyway, once again we were aware of the leak minutes after it took place in one of those venues. We are now on the following day, almost 24 hours after the leak, and the document and contents have been made public also in more respectable sources, including Tornielli's page in Vatican Insider and Le Forum Catholique. At this point, we will not be helping the leak effort, but simply recording what is known, as part of our "for the record" policy.

Our translation of the leaked circular letter follows. (The original document in French can be found here, in Vatican Insider.)


[Address, phones]
The General Secretary
Circular Letter n. 2012-06-SP 4
to the Superiors of  Districts
Autonomous Houses

+Menzingen, June 25, 2012
Your Excellencies, Rev. Superiors,

As you are aware, our Superior General had responded to the letter of March 16 of Cardinal Levada that attempted to impose the Doctrinal Preamble of September 14, 2011. By this document, dated April 15, he wished to move away from the impasse created by this Preamble. According to several agreeing sources, the new text seemed to satisfy the Supreme Pontiff.

On June 13, 2012, Cardinal Levada delivered to our Superior General the text from last April, but amended in such a way that it now reintroduces, substantially, the propositions of September 2011. Bp. Fellay immediately informed him that he could not sign this new document, clearly unacceptable. The next [General] Chapter will allow for an appraisal of the complete dossier.

Furthermore, I inform all members of the Chapter that, in virtue of Canon 2331 § 1 and 2 [of the revoked 1917 Code of Canon Law] (nc [Code of Canon Law in force] 1373), the Superior General has deprived Bp. Williamson from the position of capitulary due to his stand calling to rebellion and for continually repeated disobedience. He has also been forbidden to come to Écône for the ordinations.

Finally, Bp. Fellay has decided to postpone the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrillé and Capuchins of Morgon that were to take place in Écône on June 29. This postponement of Holy Orders was motivated simply by the wish to ensure the loyalty of these communities before the imposition of hands on their candidates (cf. I Tim. 5, 22).

Please rest assured, Your Excellencies, Reverend Superiors, of my respectful and faithful priestly dedication. 

 Father Christian Thouvenot


  1. Short-Pants10:54 AM

    Uh oh..

  2. Alsaticus10:58 AM

    Abp di Noia appointed vice-president of C.E.D. the mute secretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship.

    Will "Summorum Pontificum" be burried soon like the American prelate did for the reform of N.O.M. ?

    The chances of a reconciliation with SSPX are vanishing in Rome every day a little more since the fatal June 13rd.


  3. At the end, between the ones and the others, it seems they have routed the Fraternity and left it damaged.

  4. That person who is responsible for the leaks should be as fast as possible expelled from the Society! Don't let the Troyan horse exsist within SSPX!!

  5. The devil goes about like a roaring lion - nothing goes untouched.

    St. John the Baptist, Pray for Us!

    Our Mother of Perpetual Help, Pray for Us!

    Precious Blood of Christ, Wash Over and Cleanse Us!

  6. P.K.T.P.11:19 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. Kathleen11:37 AM

    The "leaky" behavior among trads is appalling.

    Beyond what it says about the moral fiber of those involved -- which is truly heartbreaking, they are blind to a glaring key element

    They do not take into account in their little arm chair war that they are weakening the SSPX negotiating position with Rome in the matter.

    If they truly wanted to make sure the SSPX does not become crippled through this normalization process they would not be putting Bishop Fellay into this position over and over.

    But it seems based upon their own rantings they don't want him to succeed on seeing the society through to a successful normalization.

    They want the entire thing to fail.

    They want the society to split.

    May God have mercy on them.

  8. P.K.T.P.11:44 AM

    I assume that I am free to discuss this document, now that it is made public here. If not, moderators, please delete this.

    Bishop Fellay will have some difficulty in the coming Chapter meeting, as he has certainly failed to achieve an accord. While he may have the support he needs among the capitulars of the S.S.P.X, it will be difficult to govern in these circumstances. A moral governance is something more important than a reliance on rules in positive law. He needs to be able to govern hearts (not to mention tonuges!).

    This would be good time for the Pope at least to recognise the Society formally and unconditionally, and then ask faithful to avoid it until regularisation can be achieved. Yet again, however, it should be publicly admitted what the P.C.E.D. has been saying privately for ten full years now: it's Masses do indeed fulfil the Sunday & holyday obligation.

    If the Pope made this admission and asked faithful to stay away from the Society, very few non-Society traditionalists would repair to S.S.P.X chapels for Mass or other reasons. Very few. In most countries, the approved Masses are as common or much more common than are Society Masses; and, in the rest, there is little provision of the T.L.M. from any source. Moreover, by implementing S.P. more, the Pope can greatly restrict the reach of an unregularised S.S.P.X. The establishment of new apostolates is costly: the local bishops can afford it but the Society only occasionally can.

    The S.S.P.X will continue to have some growth potential among contrarians, ideological archconservatives, royalists and so forth, but it is quite small. Its presence offering recognised Masses would exert some pressure on local bishops to co-operate with S.P. Meanwhile, the handfull of archliberals obstructing S.P. will continue gradually to decline. The ageing ideologues on the left are departing, and the more moderate Modernists are less opposed to provision for the T.L.M. This was their predecessors' fight, not theirs.

    The Pope has the means of managing the short-term situation while, at the same time, assuring a long-beneft to the Church by moving yet one step closer to full regularisation of the Society.

    This is the time for the Pope to demonstrate that he is in charge and, even if the Society is deemed to be in error by the Pope himself, that error is not sufficient to place it beyond communion with Rome. They are Catholic, even if in non-heretical error.

    Further attempts at regularisation would be counter-productive at this point. They are dividing the Society, dividing the curia, and threatening the position of Bishop Fellay. We are likely past the point of trying to ensnare the S.S.P.X in doctrinal preambles and trap them in personal prelatures. Let it be a simple but courageous recognition, and let it happen this very week, on the eve of the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, before the Chapter meeting. How will a challenge or worse to Bishop Fellay's leadership help the cause of the Pope in this?


  9. There is only one source possible for every one of these SSPX leaks. Think about it. Then pray for him.

  10. Ferraiuolo12:12 PM

    I opened this and have read it. I quite frankly don't intend in sharing it much. But wouldn't it be a sin already to read it? I ask this from the bottom of my heart.

    Sedes Sapientiae, ora pro nobis!

  11. Kathleen12:24 PM


    Yes, I agree the intent is to scuttle the talks.

    I was far from clear, which is typical of me I'm afraid.

    To try again, I believe that this arm chair war is increasing the odds that Bishop Fellay will be put in a position where he is maneuvered into accepting a crippling normalization because they have so damaged the perception of the strength of his position. That perception of weakness will be used against the society.

    I think that (rather than a collapse of talks) is the more likely outcome of their back biting arm chair war.

    I pray I'm wrong.

    I have fasted once a week and offered my rosaries for the sake of this for years now and I am not of the society. I will continue to pray, but this is heartbreaking.

  12. It seems that Pope Benedict has lost control over this matter [the SSPX] and Cardinal Levada has taken over authority.

    He hates tradition and especially the Society and unless His Holiness steps in and takes back the reins of this matter and recognize the Society [as he apparently was a month ago] then justice will never be done on earth in the SSPX situation.

  13. They do not take into account in their little arm chair war that they are weakening the SSPX negotiating position with Rome in the matter.

    I definitely agree with the poster Damien above about this. I believe the intention of the leaker(s) is to scuttle an agreement between the SSPX and the Holy See. I do not think the intention is to weaken the SSPX; that is merely a side-effect.

  14. Ben Ritchie Hook12:53 PM

    If nothing else, this whole episode has revealed that something is seriously amiss in the internal culture of the Fraternity. I suppose it may just be a few bad apples and nothing more (although still gravely wrong!), but this is beginning to seem like a systematic issue. No doubt the perpetrators could provide a very neat ethical argument justifying violation of simple moral norms; something along the lines of a reductio ad absurdum of the "state of emergency" rationale.

    Either way, it's terribly embarrassing to the FSSPX, and I can only imagine how it saddens good men like Bp. Fellay.

  15. What's all the fuss ?

    I can't think why the Superior General has not deprived Bishop Williamson of his capitular position before now. I could have told them that some underhand person would leak this document, and that this could have been frestalled by an official communiqué from Menzigen. But I can't see that it matters that this information is now public.

    The SSPX needs to clean its house of extremist elements, irrespective of talks with Rome, and this now seems more likely.

    The forthcoming General Chapter is going to be most interesting !

  16. Who is really in charge of the SSPX recognition: Pope Benedict XVI or Cardinal Levada?

  17. NIANTIC1:11 PM

    From this leaked letter posted here it seems to me that cleary Cardinal Levada, the enemy of the TLM and Tradition, is pushing his weight around. He seems to be acting in opposition to the Holy Father and is getting away with it.
    Yes, they are trying to destroy the Society and Tradition while they are still in power. I wish the Holy Father would finally speak out clearly and lay down the law. He is the Boss and not Levada.
    Lord have mercy.

  18. Pray that the Pope will have the courage to act. The wolves are closing in for the kill.

  19. Irony1:15 PM

    Kathleen - Your thoughts express mine perfectly.

    I might add, that it has been my observation that many (not all, but many - I am thinking here of 2 'Catholic' message forums in particular) of those involved in the 'arm chair war' are sedes - some who may attend an SSPX Chapel but a large number who do not.

    I have to wonder why they would be so involved in this and so vocal (trashing Bishop Fellay's reputation, calling for rebellion and revolution within the SSPX, and calling for the overthrow of Bishop Fellay) unless it is their wish to divide the SSPX and possible secure some chapels, priests, and a few bishops for themselves.

    The priests and the Bishops acting on their encouragement are pawns in their game. This is very sad - very sad indeed.

    This situation is very unfortunate and does not speak well for traditionalists.

  20. Irony1:42 PM


    I have a feeling that many will be in shock during the final judgement to find that the fault of destroying tradition does not only lie with Rome, but also with those traditionalists involved in the 'back bitting arm chair war' (as Katleen so eloquently put it).

    They find many ways to excuse and justify their actions, and they continue to encourage one another down the path of sin. They openly mock and dismiss prayer. They completely disregard Hope and Charity. They act like cafetaria Catholics - accepting the part of Catholic teachings they like and disposing of the rest. It is sickening!

  21. Picard2:22 PM

    Some of you hope that the "good" Pope Benedikt will help to overcome the "bad" Levada.

    But what if the "good" Benedikt will appoint the "very bad" Bf. Müller as head of the CDF. What should we think then...?!?

    What game is played here, I start to ask myselfe...

  22. Could it be that Cardinal Levada doesn't want the reunification and the diminution of the authority of Vatican II to happen on his watch? If he is leaving in the next week or so, as Andrea Torinelli reported, perhaps he didn't want to swallow this bitter pill. On the other hand, Archbishop Gerhard Mueller hardly seems more likely to be favourably disposed towards the SSPX, so let's hope those rumours prove wrong as well!

  23. rodrigo2:31 PM

    This is the SSPX trying to assert an inexistant authority on other communities.

    Given that the SSPX ordinations are only justified by appeal to "state of emergency"-type reasoning, it is not as if these other religious communities have a "right" to receive orders from Bp Fellay's hands. If +Fellay is going to perform ordinations of debated legality, he is probably wise to demand assurances that those receiving orders do not hold an unCatholic understanding of Rome's authority and every Catholic's duty as regards that authority.

  24. I trust that the Holy Father will accept the SSPX loyal to Bp. Fellay's leadership. The Detractors and calumniators are not wanted until they choose to repent.

  25. I trust that the Holy Father will accept the SSPX loyal to Bp. Fellay's leadership. The Detractors and calumniators are not wanted until they choose to repent.

  26. I trust that the Holy Father will accept the SSPX loyal to Bp. Fellay's leadership. The Detractors and calumniators are not wanted until they choose to repent.

  27. This letter shouldn't have been leaked, so I will offer no comments on its contents.

    Instead I will offer my prayers for the members of the Church, so that in their actions they can reflect the heavenly image of the Bride of Christ on Earth.

  28. Prof. Basto3:07 PM

    Why the reference to a revoked canon from a revoked Code?

    Does the Society question the validity of the present Code of Canon Law, and of the abrogation of the 1917 Code?

  29. Prof. Basto, last time I checked the SSPX depends primarily on 1917 of Code of Canon.

  30. Caliban3:13 PM

    "Meanwhile, the handfull of archliberals obstructing S.P. will continue gradually to decline"

    P.K.T.P, it is not they who are the problem, but the bishops, the vast majority of them, who know little about S.P. and couldn't care less.

  31. Too many Chicken Littles running about IMO :-)

    It's a simple fact that the closer that SSPX gets to regularisation, the more Monseigneur Fellay will resemble any other Ordinary.

    Which clearly INCLUDES ensuring that sanctions are discussed publicly, within the absolute religious limits of propriety and Faith, not hidden away behind closed doors.

    That Monseigneur Fellay has acted, seemingly, within the provisions of the Canon Law, not just the internal rules of the Society, is a fact that's MASSIVELY supportive of the regularisation of a situation caused NOT for doctrinal reasons, no matter the motivations at the time of the 6 Bishops, but for *disciplinary* ones.

    Ordination is provided by the Sacrament of *Order* !!!

    The SSPX reservations concerning various Vatican II documents are not actually that problematic, from a more broadly orthodox point of view -- the *abuses* of the actual Modernist heretics and rebellious doctrinal revisionists is quite another matter ; but we should not lose sight of the fact that from a broad orthodox POV, the doctrinal commentaries of SSPX constitute *at the very LEAST* a licit dissent.

    Now -- please don't devalue that expression : licit dissent is any dissent that is simultaneously permissible, and is also potentially availed of the Charism of Truth. Or not -- but the point is that from a strictly orthodox point of view, it has never been possible to dismiss the SSPX teachings for any reasons of actual falsehood.

    (except for the single very odd notion that the rupture has been caused by doctrine rather than by disobedience -- this false notion is really the only thing that SSPX needs to get rid of for reconciliation, although of course a solid confessio fidei for the full reintegration of the Bishops and their clergy does also need to be written and agreed with)

  32. rodrigo3:29 PM

    Angelqueen has some interesting information on how the latest leak was created, and the timezone from which it originated.

  33. Gratias3:47 PM

    We will have to work through Una Voce. Pity.

  34. Tradical3:51 PM

    Hi Prof B,

    "... reference to a revoked canon ..."

    The Old Canons illuminate the new in order to provide for clearer interpretations of the law.

  35. Prof. Basto4:43 PM

    Tradical: "The Old Canons illuminate the new in order to provide for clearer interpretations of the law".

    Yes, no doubt about that. Just like, when a country has a Civil Code and that Code is replaced by a new one (such as the replacement of the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 with the Portuguese Civil Code of 1966; or the adoption of the Brazilian Civil Code of 2002, replacing the 1916 Code), legal scholars still go and examine the old Codes, and old books, to interpret the law, consider its similarities and differences, etc., all part of the process of interpretation.

    Thus I have no doubt that canonists need to look at the 1917 Code every once and a while in order to interpret the provisions of the current Code.

    But the fact remains that the 1917 Code is no longer law.

    The 1917 Code has been reppealed, and its abrogation was explicit (cf. canon 6 §1, item 1 of the present Code).

    Thus the Society should not invoke reppealed law as the authority for its actions.

    By the way: this has nothing to do with the question of LITURGICAL laws. Pre-conciliar liturgical laws and laws closely related to the liturgy because the liturgical discipline of the usus antiquior is in force in the form of the liturgical books of 1962 and has never been abrogated. The maintenance of the liturgical laws of 1962 for the governance of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is confirmed by the provisions of Universae Ecclesiae.

    But the CANONICAL legislation has changed upon the promulgation and entry into force of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, that expressly deprived the 1917 Code of legal force and effect.

    To invoke authority basing one's action on a revoked Code of canons seems strange. It seems as if one is denying the authority of the legislator to change the law, and denying the authority and legitimacy of the new law. That's why I asked for clarification about wether or not the SSPX accepted the legal force of the new canons.

  36. P.K.T.P.6:17 PM


    Scuttle a deal with the S.S.P.X? The main revelation in the leaked letter is that a deal is already scuttled. Damien, as in the other matter, doesn't know what he's blathering about. I'd say that the main purpose of the leak is to let the Society rank and file know that Bishop Fellay is moving fast to control the Chapter meeting so that he can somehow get past it an stay in charge. The leaker wants the opposition to Fellay to grow between know and 7th July. The leaker wants to oust Bishop Fellay by letting everyone know that he has failed to reach an accord and is angrily taking it out on Williamson.

    Of course, this makes sense if we realise who the leaker must be.

    The fact remains that the leaked letter, in its first part, merely lets us know Bishop Fellay's reaction to the Pope's 'evaluations'. The Society's spokesman said that Bishop Fellay would let us know his reaction "seven to ten days' after the Thursday meeting. Yesterday, the day of the leaks, was Day Ten. The leaker was holding Bishop Fellay to the word of his spokesman!

    Some here want to blame Cardinal Levada, a man I definitely don't like. But the fact remains that these were supposedly the Pope's 'evaluations' which were added, after he had studied +Fellay's April response for more than a fortnight. No, this Pope is a liturgical traditionalist but an ideological liberal. He wants to bring the Society into the Vatican II Church. But even Fellay will not agree to this. I think that the Pope was hoping to take this as far as he could, but he must have known that his latest evaluations would likely be adoped by +Fellay. So, therefore, he must have a back-up plan. If so, now would be the time to recognise the Society. After the Chapter meeting, it will surely be too late, and this Pope is no spring chicken.


  37. P.K.T.P.6:21 PM


    I was referring to the liberal *bisops*, and they know all about S.P.


  38. P.K.T.P.6:25 PM

    Prof. Basto:

    My understanding, from having read the Angelus quite frequently, is that the Society vehemently opposes the New Code but does not officially question its legal standing, hence the reference to the New Code in parentheses. So they are saying that +Fellay's action is justified under the Code which should never have been abandoned--and under the New Code as well. I would not read more into it than that.

    Ironically, had the 1917 Code not been revoked, the Society would not have been able to claim its famous exemption from the 1988 excommunications. Hilariously, it is as if they were saying, Give us back the 1917 Code so that we can be banished by it to the outer darkness! But that is another digression, like the FACT that most of the sodomite priests have attacked children and young adolescents. We must stay on track here.


  39. P.K.T.P.6:29 PM

    Peter (I apologise for using your first name but it could be a handle),

    You make an excellent point, I think. This time, Bishop Fellay must have known that the letter would be leaked.


  40. Can you imagine being a seminarian and having your ordination postponed‽ Deus eos benedicat.

  41. P.K.T.P.8:34 PM


    No, the intention of the leaker was not to scuttle the talks. The talks have already been scuttled: Bishop Fellay finds the latest C.D.F. document to be "[totally unacceptable]" and will explain why at the coming Chapter Meeting.

    The intention of the leaker was to leak the deposition of Bishop of Williamson so that the rebellion against Bishop Fellay will continue to grow. The leaker, perhaps W. himself, is trying to get Fellay ousted. That is the intention of the leaker.


  42. The letter should not have been leaked, so I will not read it.

    I continue to pray for the reconciliation.

  43. P.K.T.P.10:28 PM

    Mary Jane:

    Whereas I have chosen not to read the documents of Vatican II. That would be immoral.

    Have you ever heard of the laws on detraction? It is sinful to reveal a true but damaging fact about a neighbour; however, it is not wrong to mention that fact once it becomes generally known.

    The leaked letter is now public knowledge, so you can don your glasses and read it with a clear conscience.

    What we might do, however, is to restore the Index and then put all the Vatican II documents on it. The post Vatican II documents could go on an Index Expurgatorius.


  44. Now they are investigating the leak, if this issue wasn't so important this would be a hilarious drama

  45. P.K.T.P, thank you for your reply. I have to disagree, though, that reading the documents of VII would be at all "immoral". If you have not read the VII documents, if you don't know what is in them, how can you argue against VII? I may not agree with VII, but I can read the documents so I can know specifically what it is that I dislike about that council.

    I do appreciate your sense of humor at wanting to put the VII documents on an "Index". :)

  46. Thouvenot said, "On June 13, 2012, Cardinal Levada delivered to our Superior General text from last April, but amended in such a way it now reintroduces, substantially, the propositions of September 2011. Bp. Fellay immediately informed him that he could not sign this new document, clearly unacceptable. The next [General] Chapter will allow for an appraisal of the complete dossier."

    I'd like to know who did that? Was it the Holy Father? Was it Levada who acted on his own? Surely it couldn't be the Holy Father, as he so wants their reunion. He had no clue throwing that clause back into the works wouldn't cause a complete upset not to mention mistrust? This whole Matter is really dubious now.

    Without the true details, I don't want to get into the circular he-said-she-said argument, but whatever happened, on its face, was a slimeball tactic. How can anyone think that's a legitimate way of handling things? Once again, on its face, it looks like it was someone's way of giving the SSPX the middle finger and then gloating over the idea of +Fellay's reaction. How mean! Betrayal out and out! The liberal way.

  47. Prof. Basto said, "Thus the Society should not invoke reppealed law as the authority for its actions."

    In dealing with the Church at large, no. It would be impossible. At the same time, if the SSPX is using the Old Code as part of their bylaws for the governance of the Society, they certainly have every right to do so.

  48. Anonymous5:58 PM

    Im not suprised at all at the vatican having thrown a spanner in the works at this agreement at the last moment when they learnt of the some of the internal shananigans of the SSPX like forging signitures here in the uk on a petition to the superior general against any agreement,deliberate leaking of internal letters again in the uk, and this is coming from somebody who is a regular Traditional Mass goer but sees no reason for a crypto sedevacantist group in the Church.

  49. hammer6:20 PM

    In case any readers want to know whether it is legitimate for Bishop Fellay to apply this canon against Bishop Williamson:

    Canon 1373 (new code):

    Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

    Three problems with Bishop Fellay using this canon to impose a punishment against Bishop Williamson:

    1. Bishop Williamson does not have subjects. He is not even a pastor in one of the SSPX chapels. No one is subject to his authority; rather, he is subject to Fr. Morgan and Bishop Fellay.

    2. Bishop Williamson cannot be punished for inciting hatred or animosity against the Ordinary because Bishop Fellay is not his Ordinary.

    3. Only an Ordinary can impose the punishment of interdiction. By doing so, Bishop Fellay gives the impression that he is setting up a parallel hierarchy, one that smacks of schism.

    It seems to me that in obedience Bishop Williamson can be asked to absent himself from ordinations, but, as a voting member, cannot be blocked from the Chapter. At least he cannot be blocked using this canon. I would call this an abuse of the law and authority.

    This analysis comes from a priest and is posted on a forum that is derided here as sedevacantist. Not that that has anything to do with the logic and accuracy of the analysis.

  50. It is not a judgement to clearly note that 'Vatileaks' to 'sxleaks' does not come from leftist modernists. In addition, these leaks could not have been accomplished without the guidance and fore-knowledge of hierarchy. These betrayals from those who claim to be closest to the Chair of Peter is very alarming. Or have we been completely duped by modernist manipulation?

    Michael F Brennan
    St Petersburg, Florida

  51. 1. Bishop Williamson does not have subjects. He is not even a pastor in one of the SSPX chapels. No one is subject to his authority; rather, he is subject to Fr. Morgan and Bishop Fellay.

    The problem here is the English translation. The subjects are those of the Ordinary. In other words, the Ordinary can punish those who incite his subjects against the Ordinary himself or against the Pope.

    2. Bishop Williamson cannot be punished for inciting hatred or animosity against the Ordinary because Bishop Fellay is not his Ordinary.

    The superior of a religious order is an Ordinary. He has subjects. Now whether this applies to the SSPX is another question. But it seems to me that if one accepts that the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction to conduct itself as a religious order then Bp. Fellay has supplied jurisdiction to act like an Ordinary. Moreover one can point out that Bp. Williamson is inciting "hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See." I'm sure I don't have to supply examples here.

    3. Only an Ordinary can impose the punishment of interdiction. By doing so, Bishop Fellay gives the impression that he is setting up a parallel hierarchy, one that smacks of schism.

    Bp. Williamson has not been interdicted.

  52. I think you've made some truly interesting points. Not too many people would actually think about this the way you just did.

    Nanotech Patent Lawyer


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!