Here is the anticipated Conference of Bishop Fellay he gave to the Priors in Flavigny, Feb. 27, 2014.
It is still in French. Below is a Goggle translation.
INTEGRAL conference to the Priors from Bishop Fellay in Flavigny, February 27, 2014
[WARNING: The conference transcribed by the care of the Dominicans was a very wide sample (pdf of the transcribed part by the Dominicans), as they had indicated in the preamble, lacking only the latest chapter in the most part, entitled "A Fraternity in order to fight," he also missed the session of questions / answers, I present at the end of the text in the form of photocopies.
You can find all of this conference that lasted more than four hours, below, in red at the end of the text, for the part that was missing from the copy of the Dominicans. fleche3.gif In red, for those who do not want to read this entire conference.
The missing part is not without interest, on the contrary, especially if we take into account the date of the conference (February 2014), that is to say, at the most critical of the internal crisis of the moment fraternity, while many priests and friendly communities showed an inclination to leave. This conference is a crucial turning point of this serious internal crisis.
The title: "The Rosary Crusade" was not included in the Official Bulletin of the District of France which was published this conference, it was added by the copyist Avrillé, I left. Thank you to him for that patient exercise which I took over for the smallest share.
[Warning: the spoken style has been retained.]
Dear District Superior, Dear Priests,
This is at the request of Fr. de Cacqueray I'm with you to this session and I 'took the opportunity to address an issue that concerns all of us and I think we all did a little pain. That a situation can not continue, and that we must do everything to get out. Because it is a situation that is not good, simply. A situation where we see suspicion, a set camps also charges I would say caricatured and mutuals. It is a fact. I'm not here trying to blame one or the other. I see the situation as well. And it seems to me, to get out, it is not enough to say "this is wrong, it is right." I think we should really try to get out otherwise.
On the one hand, looking out where the problem and then watching what happens, what are the consequences of this situation.
I think there are several factors that have contributed to this state of affairs. Again, we must get out. It is my great concern for a long time even if, unfortunately, there were blunders, and things were a little exacerbated in recent months.
I think, on the bottom, there is a question, a difficult question, because difficult to solve is the perception that we have what I call the Church today, that is to say what we have before us, what we call Rome, what we call the official Church, Rome, the hierarchy.
Catholic Church and the conciliar church
So far, after Archbishop Lefebvre, the position of the Society was to describe a dual element. Faced with this Rome we have in front of us, called the Catholic Church to simplify, Archbishop Lefebvre, in his famous 1974 Declaration speaks of the Eternal Rome and a modernist Rome.
Other expressions appeared then, but in the end it still stands the same. On the one hand we talk about the Catholic Church, the true, the Roman Catholic Church, the Creed. On the other, the conciliar Church. On the one hand, the Catholic Church, to which we belong and to which we belong, at all costs. And other modernist Rome which we turn away in horror: we have nothing to do with it and we do not want to have anything to do with it.
The problem is to discern between the two, in concrete. Why? Because, in the concrete, it is as if both had the same purpose. As if they were the true Church and Church substitution. And it is this substitution Church that appears most strongly, to the point that we have a problem to discern which is the real one. Where is the true Church? Where is the Church? A question that arises, with reason, when we see what happens.
There are expressions of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Church, then call conciliar very strong, and do not date from the years after the coronations in 1989 or after.
J'accuse in the Council (p. 9): "They are made ​​for the living Church and teacher of truth, free to impose the clergy and faithful of new dogmas, or progress, mutation and obedience blind and unconditional. They turned back to the true Church always gave him new institutions, a new priesthood, a new religion, a new teaching, research and still it always on behalf of the Council. "
In a 1976 text: "The church supports these errors is both schismatic and heretical time. This conciliar church is not Catholic. Insofar as the pope, bishops, priests, and the faithful attach to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church today is not only that the true Church that continues the Church yesterday, the Church of all time .... ". You have the same reality which is described by Bishop initially of conciliar church, saying that those who belong to it do not belong to the Catholic Church and then he continues with the following sentence: "The church of today is only the true Church that as it continues the church yesterday. "So it is the same reality, taken either in appearance as not being the Church or in another aspect as the Church continues.
I give you these texts to show the difficulty in which one is to discern this dual reality. I think everyone is in agreement with us to accept that when we say "the conciliar church," we do not mean just an idea but a reality. The problem is when it comes to describe the nature of this reality. So [for] the existence of this fact it goes. But as to the nature of this reality is more complicated.
We risked some images. I confess that I like the most is the image of the cancer or virus. The advantage of the image is that the virus has an outer member that enters the body, which uses the functions of the body to produce anything other than what should be in the body. And this is what happened. Call them enemies even if they were in the church, some even say that infiltrated from outside, managed to seize a number of organizations of the Church to make them produce, through what should be the normal life of the Church, elements that do not belong to the Church. Like a tumor or those viruses that produce cells that are not of the body but are inside.
When you have a cancerous tumor and the tumor is sufficiently isolated, it takes the knife, it is removed and then it is set. When the cancer is widespread, doctors give up, they do not know what to do. One could describe the current situation of generalized cancer. Again, these are images to try to approach a reality. How to describe this reality? It would be like a kind of kidnapping of the Church, as a substitution.
And the Pope there? There is talk of a pope and two churches. Yes, because some behaviors, Faith tells us that he is the head of what, in general, it is recognized as the Catholic Church. It is therefore really takes to the pope. But then he says things that do not belong to the Catholic Church but precisely what she herself called the conciliar church. A dangerous reality seems to have the upper hand. Nevertheless, it is also a finding, we see that this reality of the Church continues, but at a slower mode, to produce fruit (if one may say so), that is to say, to save souls. It is undeniable that in the Church there are souls who are saved by the normal means of the Church have not been completely removed but which are, in part, one can even say largely paralyzed embarrassed.
The apostolate, priests are not much more; denominations there are many more, but we see, however, that there are still Catholics. We see that the Church has not completely disappeared. The substitution is not total. I think, in fact, take the word church for what it is, that is to say an analogy. When we say the conciliar church, we do not use the word church in strictly and exactly the same meaning as when Catholic rEglise said. I think part of the explanation is there. The analogy is secundum quid idem in to diversa.
Obviously, one tries to substitute another, pretending to be another. This question is not easy. I do not want to dwell more on this issue, but am more stop on the result. Why? Because I think this is where a bit is based the current state of the discomfort that you feel at home. The result is: what will be our relationship with this reality we have before us, with the Church?
The Fraternity against the conciliar Church
It is obvious that if we see before us the modern church, conciliar, what relationship do you have? Bishop in one of the texts said nullam partem. What you want to have as a relationship with those who are truly modernist? The only relationship you can possibly have is to try to convert them, even though we know they are not the easiest to convert. It's simple: if the village priest invites you to concelebrate, what relationship do you have with him? You can have a relationship to go have tea with him eventually, but not participate in the ceremony. This is wrong.
So, faced with the conciliar church, relationships are reduced to almost nothing but condemnation. But we can not call this relationship. Is condemned as dangerous, schismatic, heretic. If, for cons, it maintains that there are still true church somewhere, obviously there is a relationship there. The problem is: what is the terminus ad quem of our relationship? Is this one or another one? This changes everything! And I think that's the bottom line: With the modernist church was not nen to do, whereas with the Catholic Church, it is normal to maintain a relationship.
on the one hand, it maintains that the right under Catholic, which is denied us by this entity Siue before us. On the other hand, it is clear we do not want to beg the modernists, it does not make sense. They deny half of dogma, it is not to them that we are going to beg something. It is really a complicated situation.
Faced with this situation the chapter of 2006 was found. Arguably, based on his statements (eg, what he said to the bishops) that Bishop was confident that soon there would be a pope, a good pope, who had the faith (I believe it was once spoke of a period of 5-6 years or 10 years); for him the crisis of the Church was something that would not last too long. And once that this pope would be, we, the bishops could file in his hands our episcopate. Obviously, this requires a true pope, a Catholic in the full sense of the word pope, this means that things are returned in order.
25 years later, we see that things are not just there. But nevertheless, this perspective is based on the promises of our Lord: "the gates of hell shall not prevail not" against the Church. Time of crisis, like the time of occupation by a foreign entity can not last too long, otherwise the gates of hell have prevailed.
So we expect things back in order and at that time, we will again enter ourselves in a regular relationship, that is to say, in order, with Rome. This is what is meant by "disagree practice without doctrinal agreement." Doctrinal agreement, that does not mean we sign a paper, it means much more than that, it means we agree doctrinally. That's what means doctrinal agreement. This means that things are back in order.
And then, of course, you can calmly, without fear, to have a normal relationship with the authorities. Because when we say Rome denotes authority.
This is the famous question: what can be put in authority who is against us? Reasonably, the first thing that comes to mind when such a question is asked, it is obviously not. Why? Because it can not be put in authority who wants us to lose faith that we control things that are literally deadly sins. So in a way I think quite reasonable, transmitting the principle wait until things are back in order in the Church, and this time, it will go without saying.
Section 2006 does not directly expresses the principle as that. Chapter, we said, in the few relationships that we have with Rome, the sole purpose doctrine and we will not pursue the search for a possible practical agreement. It is not far from the sentence that I believe I wrote in a post Cor unum "Not practical agreement without doctrinal agreement."
The background is always the same: why are we in such a situation face this reality? Because we want to remain Catholic. This is what we received from Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop defended himself, fought for it. He kept this deposit, which is not only the deposit of the Faith, which is all that treasure now has the Brotherhood, which is the whole Catholic treasure. It has received and intends to keep it.
What is extraordinary is to see that the simple fact of wanting to keep the deposit, quod Tradidi and accepi, put Archbishop Lefebvre and us, struggling with exactly what we call the Church. In a way, this can not be the Church condemns such a way, but it appears to be the Church. This is the mystery of the passion of the Church.
We are right in what Our Lady said at La Salette, speaking of Rome would lose the Faith, speaking of an eclipse of the Church. It is an expression that is very strong. When you have an eclipse, the object remains, it is there, but we do not see more. When there is an eclipse, whether from the sun or the moon, the celestial body is actually there, but we can not see, there is an obstacle, a screen which you can not see more. It may be a bit that we live, not a full course but largely eclipse. This is what creates the difficulty, in the concrete, to address this distinction between the true and the false church.
What relationship can we still have with the true Church who is ill at this point? That is the whole question to us. Again, I think the principle that guides us all is that of survival, in order to remain Catholic. So we can not do anything that would endanger its existence.
This is our approach to the problem. We reflect carefully, with faith, and it seems that things are like that. We must not forget that the Church is a mystery, there is something beyond us, even in what is happening. We do not have all the answers. So on one side we maintain our commitment to the true Church, and secondly, we have nothing to do with this substitute church that lies before us.
Then I think the question to ask: "At what point can we say that now we can move towards a canonical recognition? "This depends on the following consideration: the situation and the elements that fall within the hypothesis of an" agreement "are they such as to ensure precisely our existence? This is the substantive judgment.
In 2012, I was a little too optimistic. This does not mean that I was come to the conclusion that we had to make an agreement. The evidence is that it did not happen. But I thought that maybe there was some hope that we can get there. Obviously the reality was there to show us that, no, this was not the moment.
Elements that favored [such an agreement] was that Rome seemed to lower the bar to the level of the Council or, if you will, about the obligation of the Council. I say seemed. Why? Because they spoke a legitimate discussion on the issues that are difficult. If we can discuss difficult issues of the Council, this means that the Council is questionable. If it is debatable, it means that he is at the opinion. It is no longer at the obligation. But this sentence was not sufficiently clear and it took a long time to get to clarity. We got there, I definitely think in June, where it was very clear: "You must accept the Council." The sentence was the Pope: "You must accept the Council as part of the Tradition." At that time it was clear, and it was obvious that if we accept this, the Brotherhood is misrepresented, it is demolished, the treasure that is in our hands were lost. We did not have the right to do that.
The same goes for Mass, the fact require us to accept that the New Mass is lawful, it means good, it is contrary to all our experience, our analyzes and our perception of reality. No, we do not say that the New Mass is lawful or legitimate, because it is not true.
And so, once these have been met, it showed that Rome which had kept us to force us to swallow the Council and the new mass. This could not go, that's all.
In the text that I wrote at the time, I wanted to avoid the word "legitimate", making focus on promulgation. We misunderstand me; Why did I dare do that? Because Rome was given as a definition of legitimate word: "what is lawful." In other words, "legitimately enacted" simply meant "they followed the rules of the enactment."
In French, the word legitimate is rich in another sense. In French, when speaking of self, it includes an element of goodness. In this case, I do not agree that it was legitimately enacted. Whether it be clear to all: the New Mass is not legitimately enacted in that sense. When first enacted, they had not complied with the law, but then they corrected [in doctrinal discussions is the Institutio generalis Roman Missal of 2003, which was the subject of our discussions with experts the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith]. It was clean to confuse.
As for the famous hermeneutic of continuity, we have always said that it was unacceptable. What is hermeneutic of continuity? "When Rome come to us, I ask them: do you agree to sign Quanta cura, Syllabus, Pascendi these words of Archbishop said that you remember? ". In our discussions with Rome, we can say that this is what we did, especially religious freedom. And the answer they gave us is this: "But of course, every Catholic is obliged to accept Pascendi, Quanta cura and the Syllabus." The difference is that we say: "These texts are opposed to religious freedom and condemns" while Rome said: "No, it's different, it's the one next to the other, it is a supplement; but religious freedom does not remove anything from the doctrine of tolerance, tolerance principle is still valid. "
This shows, if we can say that the problem is even more refined than what you could imagine. If you want, this is the principle of non-contradiction jumping. At some point, meet our abbots who showed that there was a contradiction, or when they were cornered, they said, "Help us show that it is not contradictory, help us to overcome the contradiction."
We raised the traditional teaching to them but they are so caught up in their modernist perspective that the principle of non-contradiction is injured; it becomes really difficult to discuss. Moreover, discussions have ended badly, so to speak, because we are dealing with Protestants us and we treated modernists. It ended well.
What a surprise, after such discussions, to hear from Rome that the discussions had been successful, the discussions had gone well! But yes, each party could articulate his position! It seems to me that this was not the aim of these discussions. But this is how they have fallen on their feet, so to speak. Because, in fact, we ended with a finding of no agreement and opposition.
The current situation
Since June 2012, the thing is stopped. In addition, the Pope's letter confirmed that it was the requirement of Rome want us to swallow the Council and the liturgical reform. We said no. The first few times when I have forwarded this "no" decisions of the chapter, they acted as if it was not official. Curiously, they have even benefited because Archbishop Di Noia said: "Listen, this is how we do, this is a usual way with us. You say that the thing is to study (even though I had already expressed my refusal), it means that it is set aside ... ".
Then they used this text to say: "You see things continue." I was abused. But in reality, it is different: there was the famous letter of Advent where Archbishop Di Noia note that we are in exactly the same positions as in the 1970s This does mean that n. has not moved, everyone stayed on his position. And in this letter, it looks all kinds of solutions that are, say, political, asking what is nice is that we avoid criticizing ... But well, it does not go back things.
I have received a surprising letter in January 2013. It was written by Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Di Noia who gave me a month to say whether summation, yes or no, I accepted the proposal of 13 June 2012 . Whilst I had hitherto twice said I did not accepted it. A week later, they told me that we should not send a response, due to the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
From what I understand, it was a last burst of Benedict XVI, who still hoped to succeed to "solve the problem" before leaving, then who suddenly found that it was useless. At this time, I was told not to send the letter. This letter is, I think, the last official member. They said they would resume contact after the election of the new pope in April. There was nothing.
In September or October 2013, Mgr Pozzo, who found himself at his post, but this time as archbishop (he was formerly secretary of the commission, then after a year he returned to his former post). He contacted me saying that it was an informal contact. This means that Rome does not know how to do it; and so they grope a little to take the temperature.
So I took the opportunity to reiterate once again that whether the text of 2012, it is mine or whether it is that of Rome, was buried, was removed and he could not not serve as a basis for future discussions or agreements. For the second time, I told them: "You want to try to solve the problem with the Brotherhood. Since 2001 with Cardinal Castrillon, I try to tell you that you are asking the wrong quaestionis status. For you, this is the Brotherhood who sinned by disobedience, from the beginning, and now the Church, as a good mother in his mercy, has proposed a solution to this terrible child. You'll never get there. Why? Because the reality, the true status quaestionis is that if now we're in trouble, it is because we have been faced orders from the authority (whether the priest, the bishop, Rome ) which, if we had obeyed them, we would necessarily commit mortal sins, or against faith, or against morals. Anyway, orders came from the authority, which were sinful. These are precisely all suites of the Council, post-conciliar reforms and the new mass. "I told them: "This is the true quaestionis status and if you hope to one day reach a solution, this is what we must go, we must first remove resolve these evils that are prevalent in the Church. "
They listen or not, I do not know, but this is how I set them things. This is the state of things. And when you see how they treat the Tradition, the Pope discusses how those who want attached thereto, how he treats the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
The example of the Franciscans of the Immaculate is quite emblematic symptomatic. Here a group of 300 people, 150 priests and 150 brothers plus sisters who, after the Motu Proprio of 2007 decided to return to the old church. They even started to attack a little the Council. A dozen members then complained imposed on them the old Mass, a dozen of the 150 priests. This immediately caused a Roman intervention, apostolic visit. It was still under Benedict XVI and not just under the current pope. But Pope Francis, from what I heard, took this case personally. It is really behind. It is he, and not another, who does not accept that we have imposed the old Mass to members of this society.
They then say that there are material business, business ownership that seem to correspond to spirituality, how to Franciscan. The Capuchins are not normally the property of their home. That they are now charged because obviously, the new Roman Commissioner has no control houses - which remain in the hands of laymen. This is a big complaint is very serious, etc..
But much more serious element is the mass. They literally destroyed this company which was relatively recent since founded the same year that we, in 1970 the Superior General was completely isolated under house arrest and forbidden to communicate with the outside under pain of excommunication.; closing of the house of study, stop ordinations for one year obligation of all students to sign a document in which they accept the New Mass and the Council, under penalty of being expelled from the institute. All major superiors were discarded. It really is purely a massacre. We are not willing to squander the Brotherhood so!
The principles of our relations with Rome
Should or not these conditions have in relations with Rome? We must reaffirm our principles:
The first principle is really the Faith, that is to say the conservation, defense and propagation of the Faith. If we do not have faith, everything else falls apart, the whole spiritual edifice, supernatural, whether individuals or the Brotherhood as such, everything collapses. The first principle is really the faith and we do not have the right to endanger. If we see that they want to force it if only decrease, or even going further, to accept errors or heresies, the answer is obviously no.
The second guiding principle is certainly the conservation of our being, our own good, which is the priesthood, the Catholic priesthood in all its amplitude. Which implies also the Mass and all concerning priestly formation, that is to say, seminars and classroom training. Again they changed everything and we are not ready to take the new standards: introduction of women in seminars and so on, just imagine ...; the Council and the obligation to investigate. Yes, we also study the Council but not in the same way!
Training, but also preservation training priests, allowing them an apostolate is why Bishop founded. Lefebvre saw the situation of the Church, seeing that the bishops in their dioceses preparing, has said: "I can not send future priests that I form in seminaries, dioceses, it will not, this is not possible. "
This is one reason for the founding of the Fraternity allow the priestly life and apostolic life, and therefore a normal Catholic life. It is this combination of things. They are all involved. First of all there is faith, then there is everything Catholic that we have in the Fraternity and that God has allowed us to retain. This is our treasure and it is not about to let it spoil. We do not have the right. We are the custodians of this whole set of things, and we must work to pass. So preservation, conservation of these Catholic property, and we can say that this is the first. There is no question of this release. This is what Archbishop Cardinal Gagnon said: "there is a sine qua non in our relations with Rome is that you accept us as we are."
So, obviously, we can ask the question (and it is normal to ask, this is a matter of prudence) when or what is the situation of the Church that could allow such a scenario? If you enter a relationship, say canonical, so a relationship of submission, what then are the conditions to get the side of Rome? It is a little bit about what we tried to clarify with the famous requirements of Chapter 2012.
One can also wonder whether there really is a fundamental change between 2006 and 2012 ... Personally, I do not think so. I think we made ​​a clarification of concrete Ius, which includes something that was not foreseen in 2006 and remains far purely theoretical.
When we speak of the Church, we speak of a mystery. We know that it is governed by divine providence and it is not us who will dictate to Divine Providence how it will set things right. It leaves the door open because we know that Providence can do what she wants, she may return to restore things as she wants. With our prudence, with the help of gifts of the Holy Spirit, we cogitans our side about how this could be done, we are considering solutions to situations, but we do not know which will be chosen by God . We ask a number of elements, assuming that things will go as this, while leaving the door open. Some have concluded that we wanted therefore agreements at all costs. No, not at all.
The proof of this is the famous first condition we asked, that we can address not only errors but even those who spread the instigators of errors in the Church. What is the authority accept that? It seems to me that there is only one case, that of an authority which is already acquired, that would be okay. An authority which does not agree will not allow you that the attack is not possible. In other words, we set the bar very high.
But again, you can always think about how it will translate into reality. There are things we do not yet have, so we give milestones. We believe that if these elements are present, we can go forward. This is a reflection of caution, knowing that the future is in the hands of God. Us, we do what we can. This does not mean that we are ready to give anything. But since the Church has the promises of God, we are forced to think that one day He will do something. It is now free to do what he wants. That's what means the introduction conditions, and nothing else. It is not to invent a way behind, it is wrong to put it that way. That one understands that.
That said, I readily concede that the distinction we made between preconditions and highly recommendable conditions is somewhat artificial. I recognize that.
I give you a very specific example, that of independence from the bishops. After the issue of the Faith, defense and protection of the Faith, in a concrete and practical way the exemption power of diocesan bishops is essential. Look at all the priests of the Ecclesia Dei communities that are in the hands of the bishops: they are all more or less limited or constricted.
Among the conditions we asked, it ends up in second place. I asked myself why it was put there. I frankly think this is circumstantial data. Having presented in chapter structure that Rome had prepared, this autonomy was already included. But with a point that had not yet been clarified: the opening of new works. For the rest, this autonomy, the jurisdiction over the priests and the faithful, was granted and guaranteed. As we already had, so we did not insist further. But by itself in is, of course it was one of the key points.
The current Pope
And I really think this is the situation in which we find ourselves. What do we see in the present situation? We see a pope who does not give much value or almost nothing to the doctrine. It shows almost all the time. It is in the almost. He glories in itself. He insists that he must leave room for doubts. It attacks those who want doctrinal certainty. These are frightening phrases. You find them in the interview he gave to the Jesuits. You also find other in his famous Apostolic Exhortation, which is a firework. He put everything in, so a bit odd.
This is someone who is deeply modern, thoroughly modern spirit, with a language that can be deceiving. Why? I think. it simply comes from its Argentine origin. Argentina has introduced the Council and the conciliar reforms late. In 2000, the bishops have even apologized, they made a mea culpa for being so slow to implement the post-conciliar reforms. Thus the formation of the Pope was quite conservative. So it uses a language that is very familiar to us, especially in many of his sermons. It uses terms that we know and that we no longer hear the devil, hell, sin, carry the cross, renunciation, penance, true contrition for the mercy of God ... a all things that sound familiar to our ears. And all of a sudden you have these conclusions pose huge question marks. Why? Because all of a sudden you come to a naturalism and you wonder if he still has faith.
I give you an example, relatively recent. He says he must bear the cross, and that's a good sign if we have a cross to bear, that's fine. Then, suddenly, he said: "You Christians, you pray with the Bible, and you pray you Muslims with the Qur'an. What is important is to follow what the parents have given you, as everything will be fine. "In other words, all religions are equal. Whether Christianity or Islam, it is important to be faithful to what we received from his parents ...
A Protestant, he said: "Pray for me. Bless me, bless me, too I bless you. "This is incredible! And this is not the first time he says, it is a kind of leitmotif in him the idea to ask everyone to pray for him. Is it a mark of humility, a charismatic formula ...?
Then he announced his reforms, the distribution of power through increased collegiality. We now feel that in morality, especially conjugal morality, it will open up God knows what. What does this show?
This shows us that everything happens as if the fight in the Church took a second youth. It is as if they had found someone in Argentina who still lives in the 70s and that comes with a blissful enthusiasm for the Council. Pope refresh this eagerness to demolish everything that was found in the 70s. Truly, this is scary. As a man of action, I believe he will take action. So far we have not seen much yet but it promises.
A Fraternity in combat order
(This part has not been transcribed on the site of the Dominicans.)
This means that we, the Brotherhood, we are in the middle of a huge fight, precisely where the conservation of the faith, the defense of these values ​​are still with us is more than ever, not only now, but pressing in the direction of urget.
We need to have a presence in this fight. Hence the urgency out of this climate of confusion and blurring which is common among us, and that causes the disorder. You really out. If you still have any doubt that seek agreements with Rome, I can assure you that this is not true. And I'm sorry if blunders have given that impression. I assure you that this is not true.
If there still has contacts is such a very specific point regarding obtaining visas for our priests in Argentina. On this issue, purely administrative, Cardinal Bergoglio, while he was still Archbishop of Buenos Aires, is committed to help us: "You're Catholic, I will write in your favor."
The state is left, taking advantage of the Concordat, was able to neutralize the letter from Cardinal Bergoglio through the nonce. We ended in a stalemate. [Term chess]. A magistrate who handles our record has since met with Pope Francis, last fall, and the Pope has insisted on helping us on this particular point again. It says it is committed by his word, his promise to help us on this. It is therefore a very specific point: obtaining visas, residence permits for our priests in Argentina. He promised he would, now we'll see but it's not what will guide us. What guides us is the desire to remain Catholic.
Remains that there is something to lament, and say how the devil is strong, when we see the dialectical division and get into our ranks ... And at a time like this, where he should be truly united in the fight continues. Saving souls, souls who die today and tomorrow, there are those around us, those who are entrusted to us! If we can do a little good around us better. First ours, that we understand well. We have this treasure and we deal first of these, if after we do a little good around us we must do - illud non omittere.
This is one and the other. Do not enter or sterile dialectic contradictions. It is not to let our priory in abandoning the sheep of his fold 99 to seek that which is lost; it is not that. First we state our duty is where we are, where God has placed each of us .. Then, if we can do good around us, we do.
If we can do well in Rome, we are trying to do. This comes after, but it is not impossible - it is even more included. We must beware of certain dialectical easily where things are brought into opposition, as they complement or prioritize. As the famous question of the interior life and apostolic life or community life and apostolic life. Do not put them in opposition, it goes along.
I think I remember that Bishop says in the Constitution: "Where life in the Priory is set, it is a guarantee of the apostolate, it bears fruit in the apostolate." This means that we must care for life in the priory.
The world did not become better, the contrary. Everywhere I see an increase, aggressiveness on the part of the world. It must therefore be held together. This really is not the time to bicker. Instead you must give, and the world and the Church that sign of our union. Because deep down, we all want the same thing.
Tensions or internal divisions, now, I find stupid. Finally, I see that there are reasons and to avoid awkwardness, etc.., But we're we suspect each other, stupidly, so we really do play the enemy. This internal division weakens us. Who is it for? Who benefits from this? It is only the devil who enjoys it.
So if you have any questions, ask them. Do not hesitate to ask the authorities. I do not think I ever "killed" any colleague who had written me, even an unpleasant letter. I could not be happy but I never punished a colleague who had written me.
If I rise some time, as I have lately is when not using the normal paths. When using subversive ways, which endangers society, I must intervene. But otherwise, no, on the contrary. It is normal that we ask questions, that problems arise. It just happens and then try to solve them.
This is important. Unfortunately in recent times there have been blunders. There was no malice. Despite interpretations that have been made, I see no intention, for example, to move to the Ecclesia Dei communities., Or envy, or that it is this way then that should be taken . I do not see it. I know that text can be confusing. This is unfortunate but it is the devil who benefits. Human weakness is, it happens; then he must try to correct.
I'm even more sorry than I am, first of all, would come to restore the serenity, the peace that is so important. The Good God allows there really an ordeal. I pray that this event is for the good of all, and that we do not lose priests. Whenever the loss of priests is a victory of the devil. For us it is a defeat for the senior, it is a misfortune.
I already said once, there in St. Paul a phrase that scares me: "oportet haereses esse.". He speaks of the divisions in the Christian communities. He says "oportet" and it really scared. Therefore I beseech the God that one kind of this event, without further spiritual dead, so to say.
I still believe that it comes from the fear that the good of the Tradition is overused, as if Menzingen had this intention. It's like the rumor that it would reduce the combat, or not speak. I see a time when, in a deliberate manner, decreased tone, if you will. It was during the doctrinal discussions, and it was deliberate and thoughtful: to successfully argue he should avoid unleash the passions. But as soon as things are found in the media, we come to a point where we can not even discuss. We already see us, then you can imagine, with Rome, it's the same thing.
At one time there was a decrease in tone, but that does not mean that we stopped everything. And it does not mean that it is now a stopped tone it down forever policy. No, this is temporary. So, is this a bad habit was taken? I do not think so. Because I think we all de same spoken. I think many things are in the order of interpretation what happens or what happened. One thing is certain, you really need to continue to fight against the enemies.
We have with us the treasures, do not forget. We have treasures jealously guard but also to grow .. Our priesthood he must grows and it grows to the extent that we live our priesthood every day and always better.
It should not be lost and wasting time with all these new research on the Internet or elsewhere. Pay attention to these things, these entertainment world, computers, etc.. Be careful.
We always think about finding the right formula to minimize the use of these machines. Our life with God. Our dear Lord, in the Constitution, we said that our TV is the tabernacle. If we spent as much time on average before the tabernacle of the world people spend watching television, I'm pretty sure that much of the current malaise would not exist. Simply.
I do not want to exaggerate in this sense, but what I want to tell you and really emphasize is that we have a life that is radically different one, contrary to the world. Do not get caught up in this world. You really live well, this is where we will have the grace for ourselves and for the faithful.
The Rosary Crusade
I finish with the famous crusade. I think some do not understand, even if the second line was not expressed by all theological qualities. You had the sentence: << Back to Tradition in the Church. "Turn the sentence: "Back of the Church's Tradition," and that's good. That's what I meant, that's all. I had no thought of the Brotherhood or I do not know what else in making this intention.
Why a new crusade? For we see that times are tough. For we see that the world becomes aggressive, he attacks the souls of all sides and should therefore give our loyal armor. The purpose of these crusades is to encourage souls to practice acts of religion. Reciting of course not only the string - this is the first goal since it is the Rosary Crusade - but also by practicing the virtues, and also the sacrifice, assistance at Mass, just to acquire this armor Christian.
We also feel very comfortable with us, with our faithful how everything eventually wither. This is unfortunately the usual and ordinary course of things from the original sin. We're here to try to awaken souls. So enjoy this crusade, use it there to push souls to sanctify. It is an instrument that is given you a powerful tool to strengthen souls.
Obviously the goal is always the same: lead to the Blessed Virgin, pray for them the triumph of the Immaculate Heart by the consecration to the Blessed Virgin of Russia. But this time, before the dangers that come on the one hand, a pope who brings confusion everywhere, and on the other hand the world becomes more aggressive, so we ask protection to the Blessed Virgin, we him ask to protect us in these difficult times. That was the idea of ​​the crusade.
Questions / answers Bishop Fellay - Flavigny, February 27, 2014
[A reader told me that he could not open the attachment questions / answers that accompany the conference Flavigny Bishop Fellay.
This conference has arrived (February 2014), at the most critical internal crisis Brotherhood moment, while many priests and friendly communities showed an inclination to leave. It is therefore a crucial turning this serious internal crisis.
So that everyone can take good knowledge so I also transcribed this set of questions / answers, so everyone can access it clear in their entirety, particularly with regard to the doctrinal statement in 2012 about which Bishop Fellay said: "what is the medical treatment on the dead." This is the last response.
Happy reading! Gentiloup]
Questions / Answers
- After the election of the new Pope Francis in April 2012, have you tried to meet as its predecessors?
No. I think that maybe one day I will do it. Until now I did not really want. It is not a question of feeling. What are we going to say, I do not know how to take it. I really do not know. Again; it is not impossible to maintain relationships, human, courteous, there is a meeting once. I do not rule per se, but I do not see it yet. If I were to meet him, maybe I could ask him to recognize the validity of our sacramental acts, since Rome bored on this point, for example weddings. But I do not want to put your finger in a gear that I do not know where it leads. So for now, I have not moved.
- Monsignor, in April, I think, is scheduled canonization of Pope John Paul II is an additional step to the Faith since it is a kind of canonization of the Council, especially since it is him who has implemented. Abbe de Cacqueray asked us to worship the first Friday of the month in order to obtain Heaven, if in his goodness he deigns to hear us, that it does not occur. Brotherhood she prepares press releases or study, a conference on the subject of the thought of John Paul II? There has already had the book of the Abbe de La Rocque, it is true, but we could develop, in my opinion this occasion.
There are several things should be done. We come now when we are sufficiently close to the canonization. I think we should redouble attacks one hand. On the other hand, one thing that the faithful will understand more easily, is to show exactly what is wrong with these popes. What is more complicated is the question of infallibility that we will be objected, and he must also defuse. It takes work on both levels .. I do not know if there are new studies elsewhere.
Frankly I think it is rather the reversal of what we have already said. We must also refreshing his memory on what was this pontificate, which he did, scandals - and there are more than enough - of John Paul II. People of all-suite understand that it will not; that we dare canonize, that is to say, give an example of holiness, such scandals for the Faith, scandals in the literal sense, it's scary. I think all the faithful understand here. Perhaps in the face they will not understand. Well, so be it.
It should also explain this delicate question of infallibility or not its canonization. We have enough evidence to bring peace to the souls of consciousness, e, n their
- My lord, we have heard several times from different sides, the opinion which tends to require from you a clearer and more formal retraction of the statement of April 15, 2012 How do you respond to that.?
It is aggressive therapy on death. This statement, she is buried. It no longer exists. If there still has issues that are not clear, I will once again resume, but it no longer exists. When I say in Rome that it can not serve as a basis for future discussion, it really means that it is completely set aside.
I realize that I made a test, a test can mean missed because I thought express was not read like that, even colleagues. That means I missed my copy, that's all. It was a little difficult because it was a job on work done by Rome. I took the eraser and pencil to try to delete this hermeneutic of continuity and, despite this, we realized that the text was in favor of this hermeneutic. Well I admit I missed. That's it.
Collegiality, I thought I'd take the text of Bishop but this collegiality is a rather complicated question. Indeed, even with the nota previa can and we must say that there are still openings on what is happening now. Should therefore further develop this issue of collegiality. It is bad because it just trim the power of the Pope. The Council affirms a universal mission of the bishop of each bishop. Thus it is said as a kind of potential participation power over the whole Church. This is the basis of collegiality and, inevitably, it diminishes the power of the pope.
Similarly, if on the other hand it says the power of the pope, the other side is the participation of bishops universel.Or government stably says, it is the privilege of the pope. That's it. The pope can communicate in a temporary manner, at a council, his power. But this is temporary and it is he who decides that not bishops. This novelty certainly it is this "democratizing" will. There really unhealthy collegiality in the Council. Divine right, the bishop is only pastor in his diocese, and not on the universal Church. This is a profound novelty.