Rorate Caeli

Rome-SSPX: Against the Rumors. Part 2 of Angelus Press Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand

Part 1 can be watched here.

From the SSPX US website:

Part 2 discusses Bishop Fellay’s interview with CNS, whether the SSPX has changed positions on a doctrinal agreement, what has changed in Rome, some objections to Bishop Fellay’s position, and more!  6-15-2012


Cruise the Groove. said...

Very Encouraging!

Mary Kay said...

I get no sound on Pt 1, nothing at all of part 2 on my iPhone. Anyone else having this problem?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Great video, very reasonable responses, Fr Rostand demonstrates a clear understanding of the virtue of prudence!

The video itself was a little worse edited than the first one but still very good.

Crouchback said...

Where is the video . .not here . .and not on sspx site . .!!! Can anyone post a link please . .???

Socorro said...

Why don't they just knock it off and sign? They (Bishop Fellay and his assistants and US district superior)have no business pretending to defend the Faith anymore. If it is only about "Obedience", they should just do it and let the others carry on with the work. They make the Fraternity of St. Peter look like the smart ones. At least they did it 24 years ago. What about the virtue of RELIGION? That is above all virtues. Study that for a change.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Here it is:
scroll down a little.

Anonymous said...

Very informative video!

Martyjo said...

Fr. Rostand's calm and prudent spirit, like that of Bishop Fellay, is, I believe, sufficient in itself to demonstrate that these are holy men intent solely on discerning and obeying the will of God.

Contrarily, those who oppose them with angry words and accusations demonstrate that they are more responsive to their own passions and personal opinions than the will of God.

Putting aside all argument, the attitudes of those on both sides of the debate within Traditional circles should be sufficient for us to know immediately who is guided by the spirit of Our Lord and Archbishop Lefebvre and who is not.

R. John said...


I agree 100%

Carl said...

I was struck by the following:

"And I think the most important, which is a sign that is to come is really the prelature, the personal prelature. Is that a structure that will give us the possibility of continuing our work? Is that a structure that will give us the possibility to remain as we are? And if it is, well this is a big sign of a change in Rome, and a sign that we have the possibility of continuing our work for the restoration of tradition in the Church."

All of those who are worried about the limitations of the personal prelature structure should be edified by this explicit, authoritative reaffirmation of the Society's intention to "continue its work" and "remain as it is."

You can be confident that if a local ordinary does not grant the Society permission to enter a territory, its belief about the state of the crisis in the Church will cause it to enter the territory anyway, against the wishes of the Ordinary. You may enjoy the certainty that the Society will continue its work and remain as it is, and Rome understands this. This is very, very good news.

St. Anthony of Padua Hammer of Heretics, pray for us said...

Quote: "You can be confident that if a local ordinary does not grant the Society permission to enter a territory, its belief about the state of the crisis in the Church will cause it to enter the territory anyway, against the wishes of the Ordinary. You may enjoy the certainty that the Society will continue its work and remain as it is, and Rome understands this. This is very, very good news."

Please, do tell from where you receive these assurances - Fr. Rostand, Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger? Or are they a product of your fertile imagination?

It's no compliment to Bishop Fellay to suggest that he is going to put his name to a piece of paper that stipulates obedience to the local bishop, all the while intending to do otherwise when it suits him.

Martyjo said...

Since there is no offer on the table yet, I suggest we refrain from speculating about it.

In respect to the PP, Bishop Fellay has acknowledged the issue raised and has said that he has raised the matter with the Holy See. He spoke of Canon 297 in this regard and assured us that Rome is working on it. I suggest we wait, then, and see what happens.

Irenaeus G. Saintonge said...

I have a feeling that in the most recent talks, when the prelature was discussed, that the exact issue of local ordinaries blocking SSPX work was gone over quite thoroughly. I don't think Fellay is so incompetent as to forget perhaps the most important detail of any proposed canonical structure. Assuming that the SSPX is reconciled in the next few weeks, I'd bet a lot that Fellay is very confident in what has been offered to the Society.

Peterman said...

"They make the Fraternity of St. Peter look like the smart ones. At least they did it 24 years ago."

Really? I have a few questions for you..

Ever seen a FSSP priest dance around direct criticisms during a homily for fear of offending a local bishop?

Ever see a FSSP priest completely fail to mention that a second, bishop mandated Sunday collection would be taken because he knew it was undermining the Church? (the annual CCHD acorn fund)?

Ever see a FSSP Bishop?

Alan Aversa said...

Abp. Lefebvre didn't "change his mind" regarding the 1988 Protocol:

"Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter [the May 6, 1988 Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger]. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice. Archbishop Lefebvre did threaten in this letter, because, as he said, every step forward in the negotiation had only been obtained upon the pressure of such threats."
—Fr. François Laisney, Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican

madmachio said...

Ever see a FSSP Bishop?

No I haven't, and I've been part of the FSSP my whole life.
I will say though, they are content on seeing tradition spread as much as the SSPX are, but they do it in a serviant way. They don't "pick and choose" when they think the Pope is right in matters of faith.
They do as they are told to by the authorities of the church, unlike the SSPX.
They aren't so bold to say when they have more authority in matters of faith then the Pope.

So yes. They kind of were the smart ones when they picked "sides" 24 years ago

P.K.T.P. said...


Surely, you jest. You cannot be serious. Also, note his conditional "if" which he repeated.

Notice also, bloggers, that Fr. Rostand evaded the question about whether or not +Fellay had changed policies in no longer requiring that doctrine be solved first, before a structure, any structure, be accepted.

On the whole, it was a good interview, but it did not really add anything to what we already know. Fr. Rostand seems to be a good and honourable man.


P.K.T.P. said...

Hammer of Heretics:

Well said. Thank God you are here on this blog to bring some honest analysis to the discussion.


P.K.T.P. said...


We should attend more to what it said than to how it is said. I am sure that Fr. Rostand is a good man, but implied accusations against his supposed opponents are unfair. How many here are neocons who merely want to find a new way to say, Papa da Pope, I love you! Let's stick to the fact and leave the nonsense at the door.


Gregorian Mass said...

Naturally there is concern about the local Bishops and their obstruction of Societys such as the Priestly Socity of St Peter which has no presence in many, many areas. There expansion is often slow and their organization is almost unknown by most Catholic lay people. The SSPX is much larger and needs the freedoms to move about and expand. This is extremely important. Mistakes have been learned from the FSSP. And bigger scares local Bishops. Under the circumstances I dont think the SSPX should be subject to them at this time. I do not attend Socity Masses but hope to in the future. But our Bishops make their indignation and annoyance at the SSPX all too visible. I pray Bishop Fellay signs the Preamble and the Holy Father amends the PP to allow them freedom of movement without local Bishops being involved for now. But in the end, reconcilliation is a necessary thing at this time as I do not see a future Pontiff expending so much time on this. Things in the Church need to move forward as a type of Restoration is already underway. It needs to keep moving forward and the SSPX will greatly help this Restoration.

Martyjo said...


It is quite wrong to suggest that what is said in these matters is more important than how it is said, both are of equal importance to all.

While I can understand the questions that many have in relation to the negotiations between Rome and the SSPX, and indeed the fears of some in respect to what a PP may mean for the SSPX, there is absolutely no justification for anyone posting angry, disrespectful and scornful remarks in regard to the persons of either Pope Benedict XVI or Bishop Fellay. Those who do so act contrary to the spirit of Catholic charity.

It is our duty as Catholics to imitate the spirit of Our Lord, His Holy Mother and the saints in our dealings with others. These did not rant in anger against their neighbour, neither did they show wanton disrespect for those who hold sacred office in the Church. Our conversations, then, should always be respectful, charitable and with the good of the Church and souls above all else.

Personally, I have read some disgraceful comments on other forums denigrating the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay. It makes me wonder if the authors are indeed Catholics at all. How people can write these things the way they do, thinking all the while that they do God's will, is, frankly, beyond me. St. James tells us straight: "The anger of man worketh not the justice of God." All Catholics need to pay heed to these wise words and refrain from debating Catholic issues in a manner usually associated with liberals and Protestants.

Remember also the caution of St. Matthew that we must answer for every careless word!

Carl said...

PKTP - The "if" is not about the Society's intention to continue its work and remain as it is, but whether that intention will be sanctioned. What is being debated is NOT whether the Society will continue as it is, but IF Rome wants to recognize and sanction it. If Fellay accepts the prelature, it is because he believes Rome has changed, that the prelature gives the possibility for the Society to remain as it is.

What you do not seem to understand is that if the Society allows the terms of the Prelature to change their activity, that is the responsibility of the Society. If an ordinary denies them permission to enter his territory, it is entirely the choice of the Society how they wish to respond to this denial. If the agreement leads to the abandonment of their idea of the severity of the crisis in the Church, the distinction between a personal prelature and an international ordinariate or archdiocese won't matter one bit.

If the goal of the society was to be left alone, to be autonomous, you would be right, but if the goal is to recall the rest of the Church to tradition, a little extra formality and even friction caused by the prelatures might actually be perfect. What is essential is that the Holy See understands how the Society has operated in the past and intends to operate in the future. If that understanding exists, the piece of paper cannot create too many problems for the Society. This interview was edifying in that it indicated that this is precisely what's being accomplished in the dialogue.

Peterman said...

Just to be clear, I'm not finding fault with the FSSP. I've received many graces from their masses. I'm finding direct fault with the environment certain bishops cause for them. My hope is that this agreement with the SSPX will bring some form of liberation for the FSSP.