Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on December 29, 2012, 01:06:02 PM
-
Bishop Fellay gave a conference at OLMC in Toronto yesterday (12/28).
The conference was 1 hour 40 minutes, during which Bishop Fellay explained his actions over the past year.
* We need someone to post the highlights of the conference. I -- and many others -- don't have time to sit and listen to a 100-minute conference.
* We need someone to transcribe the entire conference.
* If you can't do either of these things, at least download the conference, listen to it, and discuss it!
http://www.cathinfo.com/OLMC1228.zip
(I'm posting it here because the link "making the rounds" -- the one I received -- is rather slow.)
-
If we had several volunteers each dedicating 15 minutes for transcription we can have this done today.
-
If we had several volunteers each dedicating 15 minutes for transcription we can have this done today.
That's the spirit!
-
If we had several volunteers each dedicating 15 minutes for transcription we can have this done today.
That's the spirit!
I'll volunteer for the last half hour, if that's of any help. But I won't be able
to start until later today. Say at minute 1:10:00 to the end? So we don't
have two or more transcribing the same words at the same time in different
parts of the world!
FWIW this is taking my system 7 minutes to download...
-
I am looking after my son right now and can't really do anything at the moment. However, if I have some time today I can try to help.
-
Bishop Fellay gave a conference at OLMC in Toronto yesterday (12/28).
The conference was 1 hour 40 minutes, during which Bishop Fellay explained his actions over the past year.
* We need someone to post the highlights of the conference. I -- and many others -- don't have time to sit and listen to a 100-minute conference.
* We need someone to transcribe the entire conference.
* If you can't do either of these things, at least download the conference, listen to it, and discuss it!
http://www.cathinfo.com/OLMC1228.zip
(I'm posting it here because the link "making the rounds" -- the one I received -- is rather slow.)
For anyone with a sense of urgency, this conference ends with +Fellay
saying that he offers here nothing new, but that the fight goes on.
I'm not so sure of that, however. There are some interesting nuances to
be heard, and seeing the transcript will greatly assist in this. It seems to
me that this will be about 10 pages long when complete, that is, 5-1/2 x
9-1/2 single spaced arial or Times New Roman in 12 point font.
He speaks about half as fast as +Williamson, who would generate around
20 pages in this much time.
Matthew:
Please post here if you would like volunteers to post their respective
transcript segments in this thread, identifying the minute counter duration
that their portion covers?
-
I can't get it to open. Willing to lend a hand if some good soul could put it on youtube, for example...
-
"Why does it take so long to say:
"Sit down, shut up, and obey! Or be crushed!"?
*
-
I can't get it to open. Willing to lend a hand if some good soul could put it on youtube, for example...
The version I posted here is a ZIP file, so you need to open it in Windows Explorer and uncompress it.
Windows XP does this without any extra software. Just double-click the file, and you'll see what's "inside" it. Double-click on the file inside, and it should launch "Windows Media Player" and start playing it.
Does that help?
By the way -- it will take at least 7 or 8 minutes to download, even with a fast connection. When I downloaded it from the original source, it took more like 50 minutes.
-
Got it, thanks Matthew. Just listening to it now. My goodness, it's a penance! What a politician!
-
I found a bit of time so I could work on the first 15 minutes.
-
"Bishop Fellay gave a conference at OLMC in Toronto yesterday (12/28). "
Interesting. Didn't Bishop Williamson just give a conference there in Toronto?
I guess, perhaps, Bishop Fellay is going to "follow" Bishop Williamson around...like Fr. Rostand (U.S.A) and Fr. Couture (Asia) "followed" around the Resistance priests. :scratchchin:
-
"Bishop Fellay gave a conference at OLMC in Toronto yesterday (12/28). "
Interesting. Didn't Bishop Williamson just give a conference there in Toronto?
I guess, perhaps, Bishop Fellay is going to "follow" Bishop Williamson around...like Fr. Rostand (U.S.A) and Fr. Couture (Asia) "followed" around the Resistance priests. :scratchchin:
Correct.
They feel the need to do damage control anywhere the resistence goes.
Exposing BREC has really thrown them for a tizzy.
-
i could be wrong.... but i believe fr couture is due in ireland shortly..........
-
From what I understand he was scheduled to be in the Toronto area before Bp. Williamson decided to visit and provide confirmations.
-
Btw, I am about half-way done on the transcription (of the first 15 minutes).
-
No mention was made of Bishop Williamson's expulsion and there was no question and answer session in this conference.
-
No mention was made of Bishop Williamson's expulsion and there was no question and answer session in this conference.
Interesting again.
As Bishop Fellay, as with Fr. Rostand, do parade around in their conferences and news letters that they have "victories" and the "Majority" of support, one would think that they would give the floor in Q/A to their "Victorious Majority's" questions who will drown out the "small" resisters of Archbishop Lefebvre. Or, is it really the other way around...for which Bishop Fellay had just given a "damage and control" directive to the other SSPX superiors NOT to give any more Q/A opportunities because of the failures of their prepared responses!
Why not let the faithful ask some questions? After all Bishop Fellay, you are the best person to ask in regards to all of these irregularities and ambiguities you have caused.
Do not the faithful, who have spiritually and materially supported you throughout all of these years, able to ask JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS OF YOU? Well, you do give plenty of question time to the "vile" media. Why not a "crumb" of your time to those who supported you all of these years???
Hmmm. :facepalm:
-
One of the larger groups should issue +F a formal invitation to answer their questions.With plenty of fanfare and advance notice.There should probably also be a nice dinner included for all. So when he stands up a very large group who are waiting for him, at least they get supper.( A life size cardboard cutout of the Bishop might be nice to fill his spot at the table or lectern. Unless you want to use the empty-chair technique ala Eastwood)
-
"Bishop Fellay gave a conference at OLMC in Toronto yesterday (12/28). "
Interesting. Didn't Bishop Williamson just give a conference there in Toronto?
I guess, perhaps, Bishop Fellay is going to "follow" Bishop Williamson around...like Fr. Rostand (U.S.A) and Fr. Couture (Asia) "followed" around the Resistance priests. :scratchchin:
No. Bishop Fellay was scheduled to be in Toronto before Bishop Williamson.
-
Thank you, Neil. I wish very much this transcript. Please somebody, help Obscurus and Neil. It is very important because we need to know regularly the state of mind of Bp Fellay. It will help a lot for our fight. Please everybody, post the transcripts in the other thread opened by Obscurus, where he gives the first 15 min. Thank you very much in advance. By doing that you will help France, Poland, Germany and all the spanish speaking countries. God bless.
-
Somebody told me that the free software express scribe :
http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html (http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html)
was very efficient but I'm bad at this kind of things and I can't make it work. Please somebody, could you try and than explain us ? When this software listen to the audio, it makes the transcript, automatically....
-
Somebody told me that the free software express scribe :
http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html (http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html)
was very efficient but I'm bad at this kind of things and I can't make it work. Please somebody, could you try and than explain us ? When this software listen to the audio, it makes the transcript, automatically....
I'd be interested to see what a voice recognition program would do with
+Fellay's rampant mispronunciations. It would likely be unreadable.
I just finished the last 32 minutes, and it was not a walk in the park. I'll
go post it on the other thread, though. It's 8 pages long.
:reading:
-
Some very good posts from CI members: thought I would stick them all on one post so you can see them more easily:
No mention was made of Bishop Williamson's expulsion and there was no question and answer session in this conference.
No mention was made of Bishop Williamson's expulsion and there was no question and answer session in this conference.
Interesting again.
As Bishop Fellay, as with Fr. Rostand, do parade around in their conferences and news letters that they have "victories" and the "Majority" of support, one would think that they would give the floor in Q/A to their "Victorious Majority's" questions who will drown out the "small" resisters of Archbishop Lefebvre. Or, is it really the other way around...for which Bishop Fellay had just given a "damage and control" directive to the other SSPX superiors NOT to give any more Q/A opportunities because of the failures of their prepared responses!
Why not let the faithful ask some questions? After all Bishop Fellay, you are the best person to ask in regards to all of these irregularities and ambiguities you have caused.
Do not the faithful, who have spiritually and materially supported you throughout all of these years, able to ask JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS OF YOU? Well, you do give plenty of question time to the "vile" media. Why not a "crumb" of your time to those who supported you all of these years???
Hmmm. :facepalm:
One of the larger groups should issue +F a formal invitation to answer their questions.With plenty of fanfare and advance notice.There should probably also be a nice dinner included for all. So when he stands up a very large group who are waiting for him, at least they get supper.( A life size cardboard cutout of the Bishop might be nice to fill his spot at the table or lectern. Unless you want to use the empty-chair technique ala Eastwood)
"Bishop Fellay gave a conference at OLMC in Toronto yesterday (12/28). "
Interesting. Didn't Bishop Williamson just give a conference there in Toronto?
I guess, perhaps, Bishop Fellay is going to "follow" Bishop Williamson around...like Fr. Rostand (U.S.A) and Fr. Couture (Asia) "followed" around the Resistance priests. :scratchchin:
No. Bishop Fellay was scheduled to be in Toronto before Bishop Williamson.
Here is the transcription thread link (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fellay-conference-OLMC-12-28-12-Transcription).
I am posting my transcript of the last 32 minutes on that thread, and I'll
await Matthew's word on where the discussion should be, etc.
There are some telling nuances in this last half-hour, and I'd like to see if
more can be found in the first hour of the material...............
-
Thank you very much, Neil ! I have to leave but I think I have nearly found the solution : with Google translate you have an option of audio recognizing of the voice. I' ll work on it tonight... God bless.
-
fr couture is coming to ireland next week, and visiting all the centers, with a slide show..........
-
On reading through this thread I'd like to know if +Fellay was in Toronto or at OLMC. These are two distinctly different locations , 60 miles apart.[/b]
-
Dec 28 at OLMC
Dec 29 at Toronto
-
fr couture is coming to ireland next week, and visiting all the centers, with a slide show..........
Be sure to have some pertinent questions handy. Work out what you're going to say beforehand. Assuming he allows questions, of course.
+Fellay's coming to England in June. We'll need to work out how we respond to that too...
-
Bishop Fellay: A Summary of Recent Events, SSPX-Rome 12-28-12 Ontario, Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0
-
On reading through this thread I'd like to know if +Fellay was in Toronto or at OLMC. These are two distinctly different locations , 60 miles apart.[/b]
Hmmm...
Dec 28 at OLMC
Dec 29 at Toronto
Okay, fine. I made a mistake. Thanks you guys for clearing this up.. I had put
both "Toronto" and "OLHC" on the same title page because I had read these
two names in the same context, but I misunderstood it apparently.
So I'll fix that, below, and also there is a little bonus for you: 32 footnotes!
Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX
OLMC Conference
Dec. 28th 2012
Feast of the Holy Innocents
Beginning minute 1:07:00
…
1:07:00
It means their seminary was a tragedy, and which Mass did they have at their seminary? The new mass. [smile audible] So you see, [smacks lips] uuhh, what is going to happen in the future now? I don’t know. I say, “Be ready.” Can be.. can be nyep again. We know that. Uhh, excommunication. Will it really happen or not? I think so long as the Pope is alive, I hardly believe it, but.. I really don’t know. If they manage to convince him that we are really against the Council, it could happen. It think it could happen.
And, I may say well, in any case, that’s the way they treat us, in any case, now, already now: they treat us – as excommunicated. That’s the situation. So it doesn’t change anything for us, so I say: “Don’t fear.” We know it, we know what it [big chuckle] means. And uh [smacks lips] I’d say, that’s not what is moving us. What is moving us is the salvation of the souls. We know that going the way that the Church goes now, thousands and millions of souls get lost. That’s what we don’t want! That’s why we want the Church to come back to its tradition. And we know that one day it will happen – how, when, this is really not in our hands. We have to do our job, our duty. The rest is in the hands of God.
1:09:00
Will it last long? Will it be short? I have seven ideas. But they are pure opinion and perspective. What I see, is that those that are really STICKING to the Council are those who made it, and those who implement[ed] it. That means: the OLDER generation – those who are in power now. But I see is that they are not followed. The younger generation, they don’t follow that way. A very interesting. I can [can’t?] understand that, because they don’t have this uhh [smacks lips] uhh, how do you say? uhh, effective relation. The Council, for the younger generation, is not their baby. The Council for them, it’s something that happened in the last MILLENIUM. So WAY IN THE PAST – what they see, what they experience is a disaster situation of the Church, a ruin. And they’re not happy with that! They’re frustrated, and so they tried to look for something, and when they see and they hear about Tradition, they are very interested – and I see these, already now. I can really tell you, we have priests, in the modern, who really are serious, really serious, and who want, and who question the Council. I got men, several messages of that type.
Even more amazing, I saw somewhere a reflection, it was a [recording skips] Eng-ish uhh, pastor who said, “That’s amazing. But about a half of the new seminarians they have a relation with the old Mass. And French priest, [skips] I said to him, “Well, you know, that’s about the same in France.” Well, in France, if you look at the situation now, this year, for example, ten percent of the newly ordained French [priests] are of the Society. The Society is already representing today, if you look at the new ordination, 10% of all the [ordinations] of France. If you add to this, those who are ordained by, if you say, Ecclesia Dei and so on, you come to more than ¼, twenty-five percent. That means that the bishops are losing control on, at already now, a quarter of the Church in France [big smile audible]. And their figgers (figures) are dramatic. The average age in France for the [priests] is above 70. More than half of the [priests] in France are above 75. You can calculate as you want. In 5 years, that will mean they are above 80. Because you have no younger coming. That means we are in front of a COL-LAPSE! – of the Church in France. It’s so serious, that the [bishops] have already prepared a shrinking of the dioceses for 2,015 by 1/3 ….. 1/3 of France wwwhhhhtt – wiped out of the map! That’s the situation.
1:13:00
They are sterile! And I may say you find the same figgers (figures) with a little bit of difference of time everywhere. Dioceses of Rome: how many ordinations for the diocese of Rome, [priests] from the place – how many, in one year? ONE. One only priest in the diocese of Rome!
Take Island [Ireland]. They have less than ten seminarians for the whole Island new seminarians. We have more than …
This is the situation of the Church. Istying. (It’s dying.) And so, you have, that’s perfectly understandable: the younger generation, they’re not happy with that! Of course they are not. What is interesting, we start to have now bishops, bishops who think that we are right. They don’t appo – open the mouth. Because [big giggle] it’s too danger for them [dangerous for them], they know. But even if they open the mouth, wwwhhhhtt! They be never, they be [de]capitated. Do you know it goes so far, one of these [bishops] directly ask[ed] me, he say [said], I want to say the Tridentine Mass every day, but if I do so, I will not be able to stain [stay in] my diocese. So what should I do? Stain my diocese, trying to do some good there, or, leave my diocese and say the Tridentine Mass?*i Well, I answered him, “Well, do both! That means, say the Mass every day, and stay in your diocese and try to do the good there. Big fight, well, anyway, uuhh.
We have now, a number of priests, of bishops, it’s new, but it’s real, it’s true! Once again, they may not be courageous enough to speak out*ii but it’s true. Because the situation is still very, very difficult.*iii This is increasing. It’s very interesting.*iv They are not the majority, no? But if you compare 5 years ago, it’s an ENORMOUS PROGRESS! And I find them a little bit every-where [pronounced as two words]. When Father Schtilling (sp?) uhh, gave a conference in Rome last autumn, four bishops asked him to preach their retreat for their priests, in their [dioceses]. Seven of these bishops learned to say the Tridentine Mass. Some from Central America, some from Africa, some from Asia [smile audible]. It’s coming, it’s little by little. It is coming. It’s a big fight, and we are in this fight and we must not abandon this fight. Of course, we must not burn ourselves.*v One must be very, very prudent. No doubt about that. But we have to foster this movement. You see? This Church is the Catholic Church, it’s OUR Church! It’s sick, full of sickness, yes?*vi So, be prudent.*vii We are not going to abandon the Church – no! If someone is sick in your family, you don’t say, “Get lost!” It’s your father! He’s sick! You take care of him! You don’t let him, say I don’t want anything to do with you – no!*viii
And the same with the Church! It’s OUR Church! It’s sick, we pray for it, we do what we can. We try not to be burned, once again [smile is audible]. So we take our.. our.. our.. precautions. We must – there’s no other way?*ix Now, when will the time come? This is very difficult to answer. I frankly, personally, I don’t think that these [this is] possible until the head is in our favor. Because the fight is too, too heavy. And the head, that means the Pope, must be absolutely convinced of the necessity of Tradition. The fight might continue in the Church, but as long as we don’t have that, I don’t see really any concrete, serious possibility to go ahead, because it’s too dangerous, too dangerous. We have many enemies, many enemies. But look and that’s very interesting. Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The ENEMIES of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the [Modernists]! The most opposed that the Society would be recognized as a Catholic: the ENEMIES of the Church! Interesting, isn’t it? More than that, what was the point?
1:19:00
What did they say to Rome? They said, “You must oblige these people to accept Vatican II. That’s also VERY interesting, isn’t it? People whom [sic] from OUTSIDE the Church, who were clearly during centuries, were enemies of the Church, say to Rome, if you want to accept these people, you MUST oblige them to accept the Council. Isn’t that interesting? Oh, it is! I think it’s FANTASTIC! Because it shows that Vatican II is THEIR THING! Not the Church’s – THEY see, the ENEMIES of the Church see THEIR benefit in the Council. Very interesting! And so, I may say that’s the kind of argument we’re going to use with Rome. Trying to make them reflect.. trying to make them reflect.
I say, [smacks lips] the situation is not desperate, no. It’s not worse than before. Still the same. There’s some hope. I don’t think for right for now, but for us, we just continue. This line, which has been so clearly given by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is so clear, this faithfulness to the past.*x Is so, so balanced, and right; we see all these fruits. It’s undeniable, let’s continue, until better times. Now how long will it last? I don’t know!! Some pretend that I said, that I don’t know if in four year, but I don’t know in how many years. (There will be an agreement)*xi – I have absolutely no idear! The only thing I say is, first,,,,,,*xii agreement is not the right word. But “recognition, normalization.” We have a right: we are Catholics and we have a right to that label. But that does not mean that we are going to change our self to get it! [smile audible]*xiii No,,,,,, we know that these [this] tradition is the future of the Church. And so we must work that it comes back. Do what we can. We see that these [this] influence of the tradition ees [is] gaining. Also isn’t this interesting? We are, we are making our point, little by little; an example, look at this year, they tried to celebrate the fifty [years] of the Council. Amazing to see how they feel obliged to justify themselves against our attacks. They didn’t do that before. Now they feel obliged to justify. I give you another example which is little thing but is, can tell something.[smacks lips] You know that just before he became a pope, Benedict XVI gave a Communion to a Protestant, to a Jose Schutz, it was at the funeral for John Paul II. Cardinal Ratzinger went and gave Communion to Jose Schutz Taize (?). Now, he said, a little bit later on, he said [smile audible] to his uuhh, to his people a little close to him, what were his thoughts [meaning to say he divulged the intentions he had held as he had given this Communion], and you know what, was he thinking about when he was giving this Communion to this Jose Schutz? He said to them, to his close people [smile audible] I thought, “What’s the Society going to say?”*xiv So you see, we are in his mind, his conscience, his BAD conscience. HUHehunh. {mischievous chuckle) It’s very interesting. Very interesting to see that! Because it shows, that say we, so to say we are there, we are GAINING in influence there. That does not mean that everything is fine. You probably heard that the very last days, now they have decided to make Paul VI a blessed. To work for the beatification of Paul VI. That’s UNBELIEVABLE! Well again we PROTEST against that.*xv
It’s wwwhhhh (air) well, the words are failing, it’s so incredible. I give you just two facts, two facts: One, the tomb of the mother of Paul VI, this is verified, so it’s not hearsay.*xvi I did send someone to verify what I tell you now, and we took photos. The tomb of the mother of Paul VI is a MAS-on-ic [Masonic] tomb. With all the MAS-on-ic symbols. It’s a fact. How can a Pope allow his mother to have a MAS-on-ic tomb? Should help people to reflect.
Another one, even more serious. We say, “even more serious.” And under Pius XII, you know you had Communist Russia, was persecuting the Catholics, and suddenly, someone said to the Pope, “You have a traitor in your house, in the Vatican, who is dealing with Moscow against you.” Pius XII did not want to believe it. But the person, who was the Lutheran bishop of Helsinki, gave the proof, provided the proof to Pius XII. His proof were brought to the Pope by I may say, a secret agent, he was a French military, and this is all docuмented, it is not hearsay.*xvii And so the Pope got the proof, that the traitor was the future Paul VI*xviii When he knew that, he kicked him out of the Vatican and he made him the bishop of Milan. So there, we’ve got Paul VI after John XXIII.*xix And now they want to make him a “blessed.”*xx Really? You think, they, they have lost, I don’t know, all of their mind. It’s incredible, incredible. My impression, that they try, they try to canonize, they have tried to beatify all these popes that have brought in all these novelties – why?*xxi Because they know they are [at] the end of their thing. And they want to make like a mon-YOU-men [a monument] that will stay in the ages by CANONIZING all these things.*xxii Now that’s my impression; maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my impression once again. Why insisting in making all of that, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, all Blessed: WHY THAT? [Good question!] Why that? If you start like that you can make saint everybody. [Good point.]
1:27:38
It’s really, they change the meaning of holiness. John Paul II explained that, he said, “I want to make so many saints that, to show that the vocation to holiness is universal, that means that everybody is called to be a saint.” Can be understood correctly. But if you start to make everybody a saint, you canonize everybody, there’s something wrong somewhere.
Now, just to show you that things are not well, that is to say, there is some hope somewhere; I am not optimistic of this situation.*xxiii If you want another example when we finish with this, an image of what kind of time do we have, or are we in. At a certain moment, towards the end of winter, you see on the trees new buds, they just come out. It’s a little thing there. When you see that, you know, spring will come. But you start to say, spring is there, people will tell you, hey, come on. It’s winter! It’s freezing! It’s snowing! It’s icy! It’s windy! Don’t say it’s spring! It’s not true! It’s winter! And we say, “Both are right. It’s still winter.” And then I say, if you look at the situation in the Church, it’s still winter. But we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming.
And now we have a very, very, delicate moment. These buds, they have a certain time they have to come out. If they come out too quickly, they might be frozen, and the new flowers will be demolished.*xxiv That’s why we have to be very, very prudent, before having these buds come out. [chuckle audible] But I may say, that’s precisely where we are now. That’s very delicate time between winter and spring. There is hope for the Church, no doubt, but don’t be too optimistic, neither. And we must keep this very prudent balance, very prudent balance; trying to make things go forward, the same time not pushing ourselves in it, too far away; or burning ourselves or killing ourselves.*xxv So people who fear, I understand them, but we’re not going there. No, no, we’re not. We don’t want to demolish what we have done for 30-40 years. That would be crazy, so we want to be, and we are certainly prudent. No need to throw ourselves into impossible situation.
But uhh, [smacks lips] we’re still in the fight, that’s all. And continue to pray, to pray the Blessed Virgin Mary; pray the Rosary! It remains our, one of our main weapons.*xxvi We must continue to defend the Faith. Not change. We have nothing to change.*xxvii The faith is above time, what was true is true, and will be true. We don’t need to change anything there,,,,,, And, [smacks lips] well, one day the Lord will put again order in His Church. We must not forget that. It’s His Church, and he remains the boss. Our Lord is the boss. He’s in control. This sometimes we forget. There is nothing happening in, on the earth that would be out of control.*xxviii Our Lord dared to say there is not one air [hair] that is falling from our head, without His permission. Not one air. So there is nothing happening on the earth, nothing, nothing evil, which could happen without the permission of God. God is the master. You may wonder, well why does He allow all these things? Well, He knows. [chuckles] He knows better than we why He does that. But what we must remember, is that He didn’t put us in that situation, and God, whenever, the last temptation or trial, to happen, He provides the grace we need to face that situation, to win, to go through it and not to fail. Remember that. We are in difficult situation, yes, it’s true. Every day is hard. The world goes down; it’s unbelievable what is happening there. Nevertheless, God allows that first, and while allowing that, He keeps us wanting what we need to behave as Catholics today, to make our salvation today. Don’t fear! On the contrary, count on Him! But put the price (?), pray. Do your duty of state. Be faithful to do your things. But Our Lord promised that He will, He will give us the faith we need to be faithful in the great things. He said it.
And of course, go to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is clear that she has been given to us,,,,,, especially for this time. She’s our heavenly mother. There is a little phrase which is impressive in Fatima: “God has put in her hands the peace of nations.”*xxix She’s really the queen: the queen of heaven and earth, even the peace of nations is in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Not to speak about the peace, uuh, how do you say, the spiritual peace, the peace with God, the fight against the sin. And so really stay close to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
And this time I promise I finish, we will consecrate, we want to consecrate our Society to St. Joseph. Why? Because St. Joseph, he’s the patron of the Church. He’s the protector of the Church. And remember in Fatima, that’s also something very interesting [smile audible]. On the 13th of October, the Blessed Virgin Mary announced the miracle of the sun, and she said she would come and bless the earth with her Son, AND with St. Joseph,*xxx with the Child Jesus, blessing the earth, on, when you had the miracle of the sun. So you have the Blessed Virgin Mary, you have the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Yes, that’s why I say the first part, the essential of the Message of Fatima, that you also have St. Joseph. That’s he’s the patron, the protector of the Church, and that [in] this time that is so hard, we want to consecrate the Society, and all of you, all of us, to St. Joseph. So to this we happen on the 19th of March, which is the Feast of St. Joseph, so I invite all of you to prepare, to prepare that date, to prepare that consecration. We will, of course provide the ne-CES-sa-ry [necessary ~ NOT "accessory"] docuмent, for that, uuhh, for that great, great E-vent [event],
And so, well, in conclusion, the fight continues. I may say nothing new, just fight continues, as ever before. And so let’s finish by entrusting ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and I will give you the blessing [smile audible]*xxxi Sal-ve Re-gi-na (Simple tone Gregorian Chant)…*xxxii
Sit donet Domini benedictum…
Adjutorium nostrum in nomini Domini
Benedixio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen.
i This is rich. +Fellay should tell him the truth: “Follow my example, and stop saying the true Mass, because that way you can be obedient to your superior.”
ii Example: Bishop Tissier, who is not courageous enough to speak out. Is that what +Fellay is thinking?
iii Yeah, he’s thinking about +de Mallerais, all right, for whom the situation is very, very difficult. Check.
iv Absolutely. Very interesting that YOU ARE MAKING IT INCREASE, because it is YOU who is making it very, very difficult for +de Mallerais, you who speak with forked tongue!
v How not to abandon the fight: keep expelling your best priests, who speak out against the errors of Vatican II, etc., and by all means do not burn yourselves – by showing the world that you are not afraid to punish even your own brother bishops who are opposed to your operation ѕυιcιdє! Because giving the impression that you are not accommodating to the errors of the world would be burning yourselves.. NOT!
vi He is giving us a list of reasons to NOT make any ‘deal’ with apostate Rome, which is full of sickness.
vii Am I the only one waiting for a definition of their word, prudent? Fr. Pfeiffer’s definition so far makes the best sense: When you hear them say prudence, remember they’re talking about cowardice!
viii Let me get this straight: but when it’s your own brother bishop who you believe is “sick,” you throw him out on his ear, correct? – unless he conforms to your unreasonable demands of “Silence! Obedience!”
ix Perhaps one may recall a recent papal dissemination regarding a particular form of “precautions?”
x When I hear him say “clear…faithfulness to the past,” there is something that does not sound quite believable, somehow, it’s in the tone, pitch of voice: saying words he does not believe, is my impression.
xi The pace of his words is painfully slow, as if he’s afraid of making a mistake he will regret for two more years or whatever, but when he says, “There will be an agreement,” it is literally 4 times faster than normal.
xii 6 commas in a row indicates a PREGNANT pause because 6 is an imperfect number.
xiii Is that why you’re kicking out all the priests and bishops who insist on keeping a firm grasp on the traditions that they have received from Apostolic Tradition, namely +ABL ~ which, curiously, is the same abbreviation that Latin grammar uses for the ablative declension, which entails a passing on from antiquity.
xiv He most likely was worried about what Bishop Richard Williamson was going to say, not +Fellay!
xv If you protest against that, then why is your “protest” only heard here, when you are preaching to the choir, and, if +W puts any such thing in print you come crying bloody murder that he’s “disobedient?”
xvi But what if someone reads this on the Internet, isn’t it a rumor then??????
xvii Ibid.
xviii Sloppy scholarship: if Pius XII had been told this man would become a future pope, he would have taken much more serious measures than merely sending him to Milan, for crying out loud!
xix But wait: we also have S.G. +Fellay after S.G. Schmidberger!! Isn’t that very interesting, too???
xx Well, you won’t have to worry about that problem for yourself, because once you make your ‘deal’ and the Romans have had their way with you ~ ubi pervincerebunt vos, they will cast you off like you did +W.
xxi What a hypocrite! This is precisely the same thing that the speaker has been doing to the Society – bringing in novelties! – and abandoning the principles of the Founder, which at the level of the S.G. is the same kind of imprudent action as it would be for the See of Peter to make an erroneous beatification.
xxii Listen to the pot calling the kettle black! What is +Fellay doing these days, if not trying to establish his own little Menzingen fiefdom in the history books, while he kicks out good priests right and left, and even his own, SENIOR bishop, +W, without a shred of real evidence, but only his pet, blanket accusations of “disobedience” when he has no jurisdiction whatsoever, and nothing objective to criticize, and that is docuмented. Who is it, who is the worst of the lot? Well, we would suppose it is those who have the higher office, the Pope and cardinals, but that does not mean the Society S.G. can do what he wants while criticizing the hierarchy above us all for the same kind of errors he himself perpetrates on the Church!
xxiii Once again, +F is giving a list of reasons why the Society should NOT pursue any ‘deal’ with Rome, nor should it be taking steps to go soft on the errors of the unclean spirit of Vatican II. But he pursues a ‘deal’ nevertheless, as though he has some kind of demented DEATH WISH for himself and all of us.
xxiv He has a certain precision with his pronunciation of “demolished” that makes me convinced he has been practicing that word in private quite a bit lately, perhaps in regards to talking about Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson. It’s so that he can describe convincingly to native English speakers what he has been doing.
xxv I detect that same tone quality with “killing ourselves” that I do when he speaks the word “demolished.”
xxvi But are we going to hear about the collective intention for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Why not? Could it be that it’s because Fellay has fallen away from the real fight, even while he pretends to be “still in the fight?” Could it be that he has become one of the False Friends of Fatima, who pay lip service to Our Lady, but no longer uses his office to promote the fulfillment of her most simple request? Pray the Rosary, yes, but what about the Consecration? What about even mentioning penance – oh, wait, right: penance means putting more money in the Menzingen-collection.
xxvii Now I’m really sorry but this is a damned LIE. If there’s ‘nothing to change,’ then why did you expel +W? He has certainly not changed anything. Or Fr. Chazal or Fr. Cardozo or any of the others? Who is doing the changing – WHILE YOU STAND HERE AND SAY THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE???
xxviii That tone again, in that “demolished” that “killing ourselves” now “out of control.”
xxix And God has put IN YOUR HANDS, the power to call the world’s Catholics to offer their prayers, Rosaries, sacrifices for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and you could open your otherwise big mouth to utter the words… but .. NNNOOOOOOOO!
xxx ERROR. Our Lady did NOT say that SHE would bless the earth. She said that St. Joseph and her Son would bless the earth. The Fatima children were even better at ecclesiology than +Fellay! They explained to many tourists and questioning faithful that Our Lady would not give a blessing, but that it is the place of her Son and her husband and the priests to give the world blessings: women do not give blessing to the world like priests do, or like the Pope and Bishops can do FOR RUSSIA!
xxxi As he deliberately (how could it be otherwise) neglects to make any mention of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, made by the Pope and all the bishops of the world – he is a bishop, after all, would he even bother to join in? For he has no jurisdiction to lose if he does not. Oh, maybe if he makes the ‘deal’ FIRST, and then the Pope can threaten to rescind the ‘deal’ if +Fellay doesn’t join in the Collegial Consecration. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
xxxii 1:37 – A very slow tempo for the Gregorian Chant Salve Regina. I guess music isn’t his first attribute either…
To help the CI reader see the indecies I have bolded them. They were
not showing up otherwise, as the superscript function is not read by this
system. Also, I have bolded all the phrases here that say "isn't it
interesting" or "that's fantastic" or "they are interested" or such, which
are obvious attempts to artificially inject enthusiasm into an otherwise
mundane and dry speech of little interest. There are no less than fifteen
such attempts here in this segment of the conference, which is less than
1/4 of the whole. Therefore there could easily be 3 or 4 times this many in
the entire content. That would mean 50 vain attempts to make a dull and
dreary speech seem somehow "interesting."
-
Take a close look at this segment:
I say, [smacks lips] the situation is not desperate, no. It’s not worse than before. Still the same. There’s some hope. I don’t think for right for now, but for us, we just continue. This line, which has been so clearly given by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is so clear, this faithfulness to the past.*x Is so, so balanced, and right; we see all these fruits. It’s undeniable, let’s continue, until better times. Now how long will it last? I don’t know!! Some pretend that I said, that I don’t know if in four year, but I don’t know in how many years. (There will be an agreement)*xi – I have absolutely no idear! The only thing I say is, first,,,,,,*xii agreement is not the right word. But “recognition, normalization.” We have a right: we are Catholics and we have a right to that label.
The bishop is explaining here his idea of perseverance. How long will it
last? he asks, and then proceeds to answer his own question.
But how does he answer it?
This explains that when he hears talk about how long the Society is
going to go on without jurisdiction, what he is thinking is, "How long
before I can convince the faithful that it is time to surrender to Rome on
Rome's terms, while pretending that 'we have not changed' and that we
are maintaining 'faithfulness to the past.'"
For him, this is just all one big game, and he's having a lot of fun playing
with our salvation.
He had better enjoy himself.................. while he still can, that is, because
the consequences to this depravity is eternal, and "the worm dieth not."
-
fr couture is coming to ireland next week, and visiting all the centers, with a slide show..........
Cool. A slide show on "the Island."
Be careful to watch for slides that have curious silhouettes from cut-outs
that are in the shape of +W or Frs. P. or C.
-
Somebody told me that the free software express scribe :
http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html (http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/index.html)
was very efficient but I'm bad at this kind of things and I can't make it work. Please somebody, could you try and than explain us ? When this software listen to the audio, it makes the transcript, automatically....
InDominoSperavi,
No, you misunderstood how Express Scribe works. You are thinking of a voice recognition program, which Express Scribe is not. Express Scribe just loads audio into a program where you can control the speed at which the audio plays (by using a foot pedal) and you can go backwards and forwards, repeat, etc. so that you do not have to listen to YouTube and try to type as fast as the video plays.
Voice recognition software is a program that types what you say as you say it. In medical practice, it has been shown to be full of errors and not worth the effort due to the time needed to correct the errors. It is particularly bad with voices with accents such as +Fellay has. I would not invest my money in it as the majority of medical transcriptionists say it is just faster to type straight from audio than try to fix all the errors. It takes a VERY long time for the program to get used to hearing ONE voice and typing the correct words, even if that is a clear, American voice with no accent.
It IS possible to listen to someone (like +Fellay) and then you yourself repeat what he says into the microphone for voice recognition (as you often see court reporters do now) but I think their software must be much more sophisticated and fine-tuned than what is offered to the general public at this time. And again, the program would have to get used to YOUR voice before you got anything close to correct.
If they have updated the program or there are other such programs that are better, I am not aware of them so cannot advise. My keyboarding speed is such that I can't be bothered with this junk and I just straight type.
-
That's a ton of hard work, Neil. Thank you for doing it and especially for the footnotes and the editing within the text. Extremely helpful. You're "da man!"
-
My computer is blocked from the site.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
-
That's a ton of hard work, Neil. Thank you for doing it and especially for the footnotes and the editing within the text. Extremely helpful. You're "da man!"
Much obliged! :cowboy:
Sorry to hear you're "under the weather," nipr -- hope you get well soon!
That was kind of like running the gauntlet. It's challenging enough to
hear the audio without dozing off (which happened several times to me
even though I was trying to transcribe it!). Then trying to keep going on
the typing is like the audio is waking you up - like it's a bad dream or
something like that. I don't have that problem with +W's sermons.
Listening to +Fellay without being able to ask questions, or to comment
on his ambiguities or errors, is a bit like Chinese Water Torture. You just
know that next drop is coming...
The footnotes were not difficult, though, rather they pretty much were
hard to suppress: it was a challenge NOT to add them in. But I could not
figure out how to get Word to let me copy the footnote numbers to my
clipboard so I could post them here. Do you know how to do that? The
only way to easily post footnotes is to upload the Word file or make it a
PDF first (which is no big deal). When I copy and paste the body without
footnotes, the footnotes or their numbers don't show up on the
clipboard or in the pasted text. If I copy only the footnotes at the end of
the docuмent, then the footnote numbers do not copy to my clipboard.
If I switch to any other view, like from Normal to Web, Print, Reading, or
Outline, the footnote numbers do not copy to my clipboard. So I have to
add them manually to my post. That's a bummer. I can't see that
happening in the future very often...
-
Neil, in his third volume of his books The Whole Truth About The Third Secret of Fatima, Brother Michel de La Sainte Trinite` writes that a Swedish intelligence colonel provided proof of Montini's working with Communist Russia. Pius XII became so ill that he became bedridden. Pius XII then kicked Montini out of Rome and sent Montini to Milan without giving him the red hat (usual for the seat of Milan) for fear that he would participate in a conclave some day and be "elected" pope. One of the first things after the October, 1958 (fiasco) that Roncalli performed was to place the red hat onto Montini. We know what happened in June 1963 (another fiasco), Montini was "elected" pope. The conclusion of the evil council, the concilium headed by a Freemason-in hiding Annibale Bugnini and six (6) protestant ministers "issued" the Novus Ordo, new sacraments, the consecration to Satan. . .
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
-
As a side note, I see that my id has 1 critic. How do we members place a "I Like" or a (I critique) onto someone's id?
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
-
My computer is blocked from the site.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
From what site? Youtube?
Bishop Fellay: A Summary of Recent Events, SSPX-Rome 12-28-12 Ontario, Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0
-
Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX
OLMC Conference
Dec. 28th 2012
Feast of the Holy Innocents
Beginning minute 1:07:00
…
... A very interesting. ... they are very interested –...
Even more amazing, ... “That’s amazing. ... What is interesting, ...It’s very interesting.*iv ... that’s very interesting. ... Interesting, isn’t it? ... VERY interesting, isn’t it? ... Isn’t that interesting? Oh, it is! I think it’s FANTASTIC! ... Very interesting! ... Also isn’t this interesting? ... It’s very interesting. Very interesting to see that! ....something very interesting ... Very interesting ... Isn’t that very interesting, too???...
... Also, I have bolded all the phrases here that say "isn't it
interesting" or "that's fantastic" or "they are interested" or such, which
are obvious attempts to artificially inject enthusiasm into an otherwise
mundane and dry speech of little interest. There are no less than fifteen
such attempts here in this segment of the conference, which is less than
1/4 of the whole. Therefore there could easily be 3 or 4 times this many in
the entire content. That would mean 50 vain attempts to make a dull and
dreary speech seem somehow "interesting."
That was interesting.... (http://i6.ifrm.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
Not that this is as interesting, but he also uses the filler phrase, "I may say that.." or some such thing. In the transcripts done so far for these conferences, I think "may say" shows up at least 12x. (I think in his Adelaid conference he must have said it about that many times in the first 15 minutes. Anyway, I suppose it's no big deal; just jumps out at me.)
Dear Fathers, dear faithful,
We will try to give you a summary of what we had to go through this last year, year and a half. It’s a very interesting time – challenging. We had to go through a major trial in the Society and so there are many things to be learned from that time. I may say so, and that is very interesting from my position I had to experience more or less every year – sometimes every two years – one place in the Society is subject to the attacks of the devil. I use these precise words - it is not just a metaphor, it is a reality. You know the Holy Scriptures says the devil is turning around - is circulating looking to devour someone and indeed the good Lord allows that our work is or will be tested by the devil. It is not just a normal or usual trial – problems we have everywhere, problems - that is normal, that is life, whenever we have people we will have some problems – it is normal but when it is a normal problem we have a proportion between the cause and the effect and the reaction.
So we have a problem and then we have the people who react to this problem and then there is a kind of proportion. I may say this is what we would call a normal problem. When suddenly there is a total discrepancy between the real thing and the reaction, you see that the passions, that there is an explosion… it’s like a volcano that goes in the air, then you know, you know that this proportion is caused by the devil. That is his way of acting and so, as I say, it’s almost every year we have to experience one place in the Society which has to go under a major trial but just one place – one totally localized – sometimes it is a seminary – sometimes it is just one place and the difference of what happened this time is that this kind of trial was extended to almost the whole Society and that is very, very rare.
In all the history, we had two or three of those – so very few, but once again you see the same elements that is there is a problem, a real problem, and then the reaction that is totally out of control – no comparison and these are the passions which are blind. It’s violent and it starts to go in all fuses, in all directions… it’s no longer the virtues which are governed well, it is the passions and sins and many kinds of trouble and a lot of confusion. I may say the element of that time was confusion and it is interesting to reflect on this. Why was there confusion? The problems with this confusion that some people have then lost the trust in the authority. I may say that is a major problem because when you lose the trust with the authority then you are left to yourself. Then you are alone to judge and you can no longer rely on anybody. That is the great, great problem of distrust and that is what happened. Not everybody of course but a certain part of the Society went into that kind of situation and once again if you go back to the real reality there is no ground. There is no ground so many many things that were spread around in the internet during that time were just simply false. False or even worse the contrary to what really happened.
If I look and try to see where, or did this confusion come from, we have several elements which did not help. The first I may say probably the most deeper and the cause of all the others is that we are experiencing since years, a contradiction in Rome. I will try to develop that point because I think it is a major one. Since 2009, I am facing directly contradiction that is instances authorities in Rome contradict themselves about us. The thing was so strong, that in June, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State, with Cardinal Bertone because of that. Well he did not give it but he asked me to see Cardinal Levada and I told him I want to see you because you people, you are contradicting yourselves about us. Some of you say that we are excommunicated, that we are out of the Church others say no there is no problem we are totally in order. It is a whole mixture there and we no longer know how to react with you or what to do with you because of this.
I will just give you two examples. One it was in 2009, it was just before Easter. In the beginning of March, even beginning in February already, the Secretariat of State issued a statement saying the Society does not exist and if the Society wants to be recognized by the Church it is necessary to accept totally everything the Council and the teachings of all the Popes since John XXIII until the present. So no recognition for the Society until they accept everything - all the novelties.
Two weeks before Easter we have a ceremony of ordination, it is called Sitientes and this year Rome did not want us to have them. They first started with Germany, in fact it was the bishops of Germany who made the pressure. So one week before the ordinations, Cardinal Castrillon is asking me not to have them.
First in Germany, he said it in a very kind way. “You would do a favor to the Pope, if you do not do them because there is pressure from the German bishops and so on.” It was about Germany and not about the other places, so I talked with all the four bishops and we agreed to make a sign, a gesture, but not to compromise, and so we said okay we are not going to have this ordination in Germany but the subdeacons who should be ordained that day they will be ordained in Econe. And so two days before the ordination in Econe, Cardinal Castrillon calls me again and said, “You cannot have these ordinations, impossible, you are against the Pope” and so on… He said here is what you must do, you ask the Pope for permission and I guarantee almost immediately you will receive the permission and up to the time of Easter in these two weeks, the Society will be recognized. I told him, “how so?” There is this declaration from Rome which says we cannot be recognized until we recognize and accept the Council and you know very well what we think about the Council. It is not going to happen. He answered, “Well this text is only a political text it is only an administrative (text) and by the way that is not what the Pope thinks.”
So what can I do now? I have an official statement which says nothing for the Society, I have a Cardinal who says that is not what the Pope thinks. You see it is an example of this contradiction. Another one, 2010, we are in the discussions with Rome and they treat us, I may say, as Catholics. Bishop de Galaretta and the priests say the Mass in St. Peter’s in the morning, they celebrate the Mass with no problem. In September, a priest is joining us from the Novus Ordo and he was a religious and his superior sent a letter to this priest with a letter from the Congregation of the Religious which said the following: “This father is excommunicated, he is excommunicated because he lost the faith by joining the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.”
So I went down to Rome and said to Monsignor Pozzo, “What’s that?” and he told me, “Oh we would have already spoken, with this we have talked to the Congregation of Religious and they don’t have the right to say so. It’s wrong - they are not competent so they have to revise the judgment, and he made this sign in front of me, that’s what we have to do with the letter. So you have to [throw it in the basket]. So you have one instance (?) in Rome who tells me to treat an official docuмent from Rome this way. That is what I call a contradiction. I knew also, I know, I happen to know simply that on the certain points where the Pope has done something favorable to us you have other people in Rome who are doing sabatoge against the Pope. Again, I give you an example, just that you may know that I don’t speak in the air but I have really these experiences.
There is an abbey in Germany, it is the only Trappist Abbey and the Father Abbot asked the Pope not only to go back to the Old Mass, because now it is allowed, you can do that but to go back to the old rule before the Council. And the Pope granted it and even said that he hoped that it’s an example that would be followed by many. Now six months later, this Abbot has not received any answer from Rome and he is calling a friend in Rome and he says what is happening with me. This friend who is very, very close to the Pope told him, “Well, write again to the Pope and this time send this letter to me and I will bring it to the Holy Father,” which happened. I know the story from that very person so it is not just hearsay, directly this person who was very close to the Pope told me that story, so he went to see the Pope with this letter and he asked the Pope, “What is going on with this abbey in Germany?… and the Pope said, “But it is six months since I have granted the permission!” So what, they made an inquiry and in fact it was the person in the Secretariat of State who should have transmitted the decision of the Pope but just put it in the drawer.
This man now is a cardinal, the one who sabotaged the Pope. I know the same person who did another sabotaged, well many. He just hijacked a decision of the Pope who had to be transmitted to the Prefect of the Liturgy. You see, you have to understand how Rome works. When the Pope decides something, it does not go directly to the persons; it goes through the Secretary of State. But, if you receive a letter from the Pope, it will have gone through the Secretary of State. If you write a letter to the Pope, it goes through the Secretary of State. There are some bypasses, but you must be well-placed to get them. In a sense, it is impossible to get straight to the Pope. And even for decisions of the Pope inside the Vatican, they go through the Secretary of State. And so, you have people in the Secretary of State who block the decisions of the Pope and don’t transmit that. I have, once again, several examples of that, so it is something I know.
This I tell you so that you may have a background of what is going to happen. So, I know that the Pope would like to do something with us. I know that he is very attached to the Council. Very. You read the audience in 2005, the point which impressed me the most was how inconceivable it was for the Pope to have a Catholic who would reject the Council. It was so strong that in the little letter which I wrote to thank him for the audience, I had to mention that I didn’t agree with him about the Council. <…> no, we don’t accept that.
So, we have discussions. In two years, we have doctrinal discussions in Rome. These discussions, they were interesting and very frustrating at least for us, for our people. We really had the impression that they did not listen to what we said. They had just to <…> and that’s it. And the end of the discussions were pretty hot because they told us, “you are Protestants,” and we answered them, “you are modernists.” That’s the way the discussions finished. As a matter of joke, I said, “Well, we came to one point of agreement with Rome and that is that there is no point where we agree.” Just to say; and so they know that.
And, Cardinal Levada is inviting me, this is in June, is inviting me for a meeting in September, on the 14th of September. And, he says, it’s for an evaluation of the discussions. And he adds, and also to evoke some perspective for the future. But, clearly, the main topic will be the discussions, and evaluation of the discussions. So, we arrived there.
About the discussions, they said, maybe it took 3 minutes, maybe 5, but very, very short. What did they say about the discussions? They said, the discussions have reached the end, the purpose was fulfilled which was for you to expose clearly your position, that’s it.
Is it good? Is it bad? Nothing. Just, you were able to expose how you think. That’s all. And then, then the proposal. Rome is going to give you canonical status and you sign this declaration. The name was “Preamble”.
And what is in this preamble? …
__
This is a transcript of the final 32 minutes of this conference, that is, there
is one hour and seven minutes of material that precedes this final segment.
Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX
OLMC Dec. 28th 2012
Feast of the Holy Innocents
…
1:07:00
It means their seminary was a tragedy, and which Mass did they have at their seminary? The new mass. [smile audible] So you see, [smacks lips] uuhh, what is going to happen in the future now? I don’t know. I say, “Be ready.” Can be.. can be nyep again. We know that. Uhh, excommunication. Will it really happen or not? I think so long as the Pope is alive, I hardly believe it, but.. I really don’t know. If they manage to convince him that we are really against the Council, it could happen. It think it could happen.
And, I may say well, in any case, that’s the way they treat us, in any case, now, already now: they treat us – as excommunicated. That’s the situation. So it doesn’t change anything for us, so I say: “Don’t fear.” We know it, we know what it [big chuckle] means. And uh [smacks lips] I’d say, that’s not what is moving us. What is moving us is the salvation of the souls. We know that going the way that the Church goes now, thousands and millions of souls get lost. That’s what we don’t want! That’s why we want the Church to come back to its tradition. And we know that one day it will happen – how, when, this is really not in our hands. We have to do our job, our duty. The rest is in the hands of God.
1:09:00
Will it last long? Will it be short? I have seven ideas. But they are pure opinion and perspective. What I see, is that those that are really STICKING to the Council are those who made it, and those who implement[ed] it. That means: the OLDER generation – those who are in power now. But I see is that they are not followed. The younger generation, they don’t follow that way. A very interesting. I can [can’t?] understand that, because they don’t have this uhh [smacks lips] uhh, how do you say? uhh, effective relation. The Council, for the younger generation, is not their baby. The Council for them, it’s something that happened in the last MILLENIUM. So WAY IN THE PAST – what they see, what they experience is a disaster situation of the Church, a ruin. And they’re not happy with that! They’re frustrated, and so they tried to look for something, and when they see and they hear about Tradition, they are very interested – and I see these, already now. I can really tell you, we have priests, in the modern, who really are serious, really serious, and who want, and who question the Council. I got men, several messages of that type.
Even more amazing, I saw somewhere a reflection, it was a [recording skips] Eng-ish uhh, pastor who said, “That’s amazing. But about a half of the new seminarians they have a relation with the old Mass. And French priest, [skips] I said to him, “Well, you know, that’s about the same in France.” Well, in France, if you look at the situation now, this year, for example, ten percent of the newly ordained French [priests] are of the Society. The Society is already representing today, if you look at the new ordination, 10% of all the [ordinations] of France. If you add to this, those who are ordained by, if you say, Ecclesia Dei and so on, you come to more than ¼, twenty-five percent. That means that the bishops are losing control on, at already now, a quarter of the Church in France [big smile audible]. And their figgers (figures) are dramatic. The average age in France for the [priests] is above 70. More than half of the [priests] in France are above 75. You can calculate as you want. In 5 years, that will mean they are above 80. Because you have no younger coming. That means we are in front of a COL-LAPSE! – of the Church in France. It’s so serious, that the [bishops] have already prepared a shrinking of the dioceses for 2,015 by 1/3 ….. 1/3 of France wwwhhhhtt – wiped out of the map! That’s the situation.
1:13:00
They are sterile! And I may say you find the same figgers (figures) with a little bit of difference of time everywhere. Dioceses of Rome: how many ordinations for the diocese of Rome, [priests] from the place – how many, in one year? ONE. One only priest in the diocese of Rome!
Take Island [Ireland]. They have less than ten seminarians for the whole Island new seminarians. We have more than …
This is the situation of the Church. Istying. (It’s dying.) And so, you have, that’s perfectly understandable: the younger generation, they’re not happy with that! Of course they are not. What is interesting, we start to have now bishops, bishops who think that we are right. They don’t appo – open the mouth. Because [big giggle] it’s too danger for them [dangerous for them], they know. But even if they open the mouth, wwwhhhhtt! They be never, they be [de]capitated. Do you know it goes so far, one of these [bishops] directly ask[ed] me, he say [said], I want to say the Tridentine Mass every day, but if I do so, I will not be able to stain [stay in] my diocese. So what should I do? Stain my diocese, trying to do some good there, or, leave my diocese and say the Tridentine Mass? Well, I answered him, “Well, do both! That means, say the Mass every day, and stay in your diocese and try to do the good there. Big fight, well, anyway, uuhh.
We have now, a number of priests, of bishops, it’s new, but it’s real, it’s true! Once again, they may not be courageous enough to speak out but it’s true. Because the situation is still very, very difficult. This is increasing. It’s very interesting. They are not the majority, no? But if you compare 5 years ago, it’s an ENORMOUS PROGRESS! And I find them a little bit every-where [pronounced as two words]. When Father Schtilling (sp?) uhh, gave a conference in Rome last autumn, four bishops asked him to preach their retreat for their priests, in their [dioceses]. Seven of these bishops learned to say the Tridentine Mass. Some from Central America, some from Africa, some from Asia [smile audible]. It’s coming, it’s little by little. It is coming. It’s a big fight, and we are in this fight and we must not abandon this fight. Of course, we must not burn ourselves. One must be very, very prudent. No doubt about that. But we have to foster this movement. You see? This Church is the Catholic Church, it’s OUR Church! It’s sick, full of sickness, yes? So, be prudent. We are not going to abandon the Church – no! If someone is sick in your family, you don’t say, “Get lost!” It’s your father! He’s sick! You take care of him! You don’t let him, say I don’t want anything to do with you – no!
And the same with the Church! It’s OUR Church! It’s sick, we pray for it, we do what we can. We try not to be burned, once again [smile is audible]. So we take our.. our.. our.. precautions. We must – there’s no other way? Now, when will the time come? This is very difficult to answer. I frankly, personally, I don’t think that these [this is] possible until the head is in our favor. Because the fight is too, too heavy. And the head, that means the Pope, must be absolutely convinced of the necessity of Tradition. The fight might continue in the Church, but as long as we don’t have that, I don’t see really any concrete, serious possibility to go ahead, because it’s too dangerous, too dangerous. We have many enemies, many enemies. But look and that’s very interesting. Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The ENEMIES of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the [Modernists]! The most opposed that the Society would be recognized as a Catholic: the ENEMIES of the Church! interesting, isn’t it? More than that, what was the point?
1:19:00
What did they say to Rome? They said, “You must oblige these people to accept Vatican II. That’s also VERY interesting, isn’t it? People whom [sic] from OUTSIDE the Church, who were clearly during centuries, were enemies of the Church, say to Rome, if you want to accept these people, you MUST oblige them to accept the Council. Isn’t that interesting? Oh, it is! I think it’s FANTASTIC! Because it shows that Vatican II is THEIR THING! Not the Church’s – THEY see, the ENEMIES of the Church see THEIR benefit in the Council. Very interesting! And so, I may say that’s the kind of argument we’re going to use with Rome. Trying to make them reflect.. trying to make them reflect.
I say, [smacks lips] the situation is not desperate, no. It’s not worse than before. Still the same. There’s some hope. I don’t think for right for now, but for us, we just continue.
This line, which has been so clearly given by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is so clear, this faithfulness to the past. Is so, so balanced, and right; we see all these fruits. It’s undeniable, let’s continue, until better times. Now how long will it last? I don’t know!! Some pretend that I said, that I don’t know if in four year, but I don’t know in how many years. (There will be an agreement) – I have absolutely no idear! The only thing I say is, first,,,,,, agreement is not the right word. But “recognition, normalization.” We have a right: we are Catholics and we have a right to that label. But that does not mean that we are going to change our self to get it! [smile audible] No,,,,,, we know that these [this] tradition is the future of the Church. And so we must work that it comes back. Do what we can. We see that these [this] influence of the tradition ees [is] gaining. Also isn’t this interesting? We are, we are making our point, little by little; an example, look at this year, they tried to celebrate the fifty [years] of the Council. amazing to see how they feel obliged to justify themselves against our attacks. They didn’t do that before. Now they feel obliged to justify. I give you another example which is little thing but is, can tell something.[smacks lips] You know that just before he became a pope, Benedict XVI gave a Communion to a Protestant, to a Jose Schutz, it was at the funeral for John Paul II. Cardinal Ratzinger went and gave Communion to Jose Schutz Taize (?). Now, he said, a little bit later on, he said [smile audible] to his uuhh, to his people a little close to him, what were his thoughts [meaning to say he divulged the intentions he had held as he had given this Communion], and you know what, was he thinking about when he was giving this Communion to this Jose Schutz? He said to them, to his close people [smile audible] I thought, “What’s the Society going to say?” So you see, we are in his mind, his conscience, his BAD conscience. HUHehunh. (mischievous chuckle) It’s very interesting. Very interesting to see that! Because it shows, that say we, so to say we are there, we are GAINING in influence there. That does not mean that everything is fine. You probably heard that the very last days, now they have decided to make Paul VI a blessed. To work for the beatification of Paul VI. That’s UNBELIEVABLE! Well again we PROTEST against that.
It’s wwwhhhh (air) well, the words are failing, it’s so incredible. I give you just two facts, two facts: One, the tomb of the mother of Paul VI, this is verified, so it’s not hearsay. I did send someone to verify what I tell you now, and we took photos. The tomb of the mother of Paul VI is a MAS-on-ic [Masonic] tomb. With all the MAS-on-ic symbols. It’s a fact. How can a Pope allow his mother to have a MAS-on-ic tomb? Should help people to reflect.
Another one, even more serious. We say, “even more serious.” And under Pius XII, you know you had Communist Russia, was persecuting the Catholics, and suddenly, someone said to the Pope, “You have a traitor in your house, in the Vatican, who is dealing with Moscow against you.” Pius XII did not want to believe it. But the person, who was the Lutheran bishop of Helsinki, gave the proof, provided the proof to Pius XII. His proof were brought to the Pope by I may say, a secret agent, he was a French military, and this is all docuмented, it is not hearsay. And so the Pope got the proof, that the traitor was the future Paul VI When he knew that, he kicked him out of the Vatican and he made him the bishop of Milan. So there, we’ve got Paul VI after John XXIII. And now they want to make him a “blessed.” Really? You think, they, they have lost, I don’t know, all of their mind. It’s incredible, incredible. My impression, that they try, they try to canonize, they have tried to beatify all these popes that have brought in all these novelties – why? Because they know they are [at] the end of their thing. And they want to make like a mon-YOU-men [a monument] that will stay in the ages by CANONIZING all these things. Now that’s my impression; maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my impression once again. Why insisting in making all of that, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, all Blessed: WHY THAT? [Good question!] Why that? If you start like that you can make saint everybody. [Good point.]
1:27:38
It’s really, they change the meaning of holiness. John Paul II explained that, he said, “I want to make so many saints that, to show that the vocation to holiness is universal, that means that everybody is called to be a saint.” Can be understood correctly. But if you start to make everybody a saint, you canonize everybody, there’s something wrong somewhere.
Now, just to show you that things are not well, that is to say, there is some hope somewhere; I am not optimistic of this situation. If you want another example when we finish with this, an image of what kind of time do we have, or are we in. At a certain moment, towards the end of winter, you see on the trees new buds, they just come out. It’s a little thing there. When you see that, you know, spring will come. But you start to say, spring is there, people will tell you, hey, come on. It’s winter! It’s freezing! It’s snowing! It’s icy! It’s windy! Don’t say it’s spring! It’s not true! It’s winter! And we say, “Both are right. It’s still winter.” And then I say, if you look at the situation in the Church, it’s still winter. But we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming.
And now we have a very, very, delicate moment. These buds, they have a certain time they have to come out. If they come out too quickly, they might be frozen, and the new flowers will be demolished. That’s why we have to be very, very prudent, before having these buds come out. [chuckle audible] But I may say, that’s precisely where we are now. That’s very delicate time between winter and spring. There is hope for the Church, no doubt, but don’t be too optimistic, neither. And we must keep this very prudent balance, very prudent balance; trying to make things go forward, the same time not pushing ourselves in it, too far away; or burning ourselves or killing ourselves. So people who fear, I understand them, but we’re not going there. No, no, we’re not. We don’t want to demolish what we have done for 30-40 years. That would be crazy, so we want to be, and we are certainly prudent. No need to throw ourselves into impossible situation.
But uhh, [smacks lips] we’re still in the fight, that’s all. And continue to pray, to pray the Blessed Virgin Mary; pray the Rosary! It remains our, one of our main weapons. We must continue to defend the Faith. Not change. We have nothing to change. The faith is above time, what was true is true, and will be true. We don’t need to change anything there,,,,,, And, [smacks lips] well, one day the Lord will put again order in His Church. We must not forget that. It’s His Church, and he remains the boss. Our Lord is the boss. He’s in control. This sometimes we forget. There is nothing happening in, on the earth that would be out of control Our Lord dared to say there is not one air [hair] that is falling from our head, without His permission. Not one air. So there is nothing happening on the earth, nothing, nothing evil, which could happen without the permission of God. God is the master. You may wonder, well why does He allow all these things? Well, He knows. [chuckles] He knows better than we why He does that. But what we must remember, is that He didn’t put us in that situation, and God, whenever, the last temptation or trial, to happen, He provides the grace we need to face that situation, to win, to go through it and not to fail. Remember that. We are in difficult situation, yes, it’s true. Every day is hard. The world goes down; it’s unbelievable what is happening there. Nevertheless, God allows that first, and while allowing that, He keeps us wanting what we need to behave as Catholics today, to make our salvation today. Don’t fear! On the contrary, count on Him! But put the price (?), pray. Do your duty of state. Be faithful to do your things. But Our Lord promised that He will, He will give us the faith we need to be faithful in the great things. He said it.
And of course, go to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is clear that she has been given to us,,,,,, especially for this time. She’s our heavenly mother. There is a little phrase which is impressive in Fatima: “God has put in her hands the peace of nations.” She’s really the queen: the queen of heaven and earth, even the peace of nations is in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Not to speak about the peace, uuh, how do you say, the spiritual peace, the peace with God, the fight against the sin. And so really stay close to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
And this time I promise I finish, we will consecrate, we want to consecrate our Society to St. Joseph. Why? Because St. Joseph, he’s the patron of the Church. He’s the protector of the Church. And remember in Fatima, that’s also something very interesting [smile audible]. On the 13th of October, the Blessed Virgin Mary announced the miracle of the sun, and she said she would come and bless the earth with her Son, AND with St. Joseph, with the Child Jesus, blessing the earth, on, when you had the miracle of the sun. So you have the Blessed Virgin Mary, you have the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Yes, that’s why I say the first part, the essential of the Message of Fatima, that you also have St. Joseph. That’s he’s the patron, the protector of the Church, and that [in] this time that is so hard, we want to consecrate the Society, and all of you, all of us, to St. Joseph. So to this we happen on the 19th of March, which is the Feast of St. Joseph, so I invite all of you to prepare, to prepare that date, to prepare that consecration. We will, of course provide the ne-CES-sa-ry [necessary] docuмent, for that, uuhh, for that great, great E-vent [event],
And so, well, in conclusion, the fight continues. I may say nothing new, just fight continues, as ever before. And so let’s finish by entrusting ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and I will give you the blessing [smile audible] Sal-ve Re-gi-na (Simple tone Gregorian Chant)…
Sit donet Domini benedictum…
Adjutorium nostrum in nomini Domini
Benedixio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen.
1:39:17
-
Neil, in his third volume of his books The Whole Truth About The Third Secret of Fatima, Brother Michel de La Sainte Trinite` writes that a Swedish intelligence colonel provided proof of Montini's working with Communist Russia. Pius XII became so ill that he became bedridden. Pius XII then kicked Montini out of Rome and sent Montini to Milan without giving him the red hat (usual for the seat of Milan) for fear that he would participate in a conclave some day and be "elected" pope. One of the first things after the October, 1958 (fiasco) that Roncalli performed was to place the red hat onto Montini. We know what happened in June 1963 (another fiasco), Montini was "elected" pope. The conclusion of the evil council, the concilium headed by a Freemason-in hiding Annibale Bugnini and six (6) protestant ministers "issued" the Novus Ordo, new sacraments, the consecration to Satan. . .
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Thank you, drivocek. I recall hearing Malachi Martin explain that some woman
who was a well-known housekeeper in the Vatican was heard explaining to
someone else that the reason Roncalli was elected Pope even though he was
not well and not expected to live long, was so that he could make it possible
for Montini to be elected after all, even though he had been "exiled to Milan."
I think it may be in one of his books, such as Windswept House, not sure.
BTW:
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Uh... grammar?? Potes and Aude are not Latin words.
Quantum potestantum audi = As much as possible, greatly hear thou me.
-
That was interesting.... (http://i6.ifrm.com/html/emoticons/wink.gif)
Not that this is as interesting, but he also uses the filler phrase, "I may say that.." or some such thing. In the transcripts done so far for these conferences, I think "may say" shows up at least 12x. (I think in his Adelaid conference he must have said it about that many times in the first 15 minutes. Anyway, I suppose it's no big deal; just jumps out at me.)
Good one.
When I see this filler phrase, "I may say," I get the impression that he is
literally giving himself permission to speak something, as if to say that what
he is about to utter is "under obedience." This describes a way of thinking
that is obsessed with one's own power, very prideful. And yet, ironically,
there are a lot of intelligent people afoot who are convinced that he is
quite "humble."
This juxtaposition of appearance of humility and deep-seated pride is ironic.
Or, should I say, "self-contradictory?"
-
Neil, in his third volume of his books The Whole Truth About The Third Secret of Fatima, Brother Michel de La Sainte Trinite` writes that a Swedish intelligence colonel provided proof of Montini's working with Communist Russia. Pius XII became so ill that he became bedridden. Pius XII then kicked Montini out of Rome and sent Montini to Milan without giving him the red hat (usual for the seat of Milan) for fear that he would participate in a conclave some day and be "elected" pope. One of the first things after the October, 1958 (fiasco) that Roncalli performed was to place the red hat onto Montini. We know what happened in June 1963 (another fiasco), Montini was "elected" pope. The conclusion of the evil council, the concilium headed by a Freemason-in hiding Annibale Bugnini and six (6) protestant ministers "issued" the Novus Ordo, new sacraments, the consecration to Satan. . .
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Thank you, drivocek. I recall hearing Malachi Martin explain that some woman
who was a well-known housekeeper in the Vatican was heard explaining to
someone else that the reason Roncalli was elected Pope even though he was
not well and not expected to live long, was so that he could make it possible
for Montini to be elected after all, even though he had been "exiled to Milan."
I think it may be in one of his books, such as Windswept House, not sure.
BTW:
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Uh... grammar?? Potes and Aude are not Latin words.
Quantum potestantum audi = As much as possible, greatly hear thou me.
-
Neil, in his third volume of his books The Whole Truth About The Third Secret of Fatima, Brother Michel de La Sainte Trinite` writes that a Swedish intelligence colonel provided proof of Montini's working with Communist Russia. Pius XII became so ill that he became bedridden. Pius XII then kicked Montini out of Rome and sent Montini to Milan without giving him the red hat (usual for the seat of Milan) for fear that he would participate in a conclave some day and be "elected" pope. One of the first things after the October, 1958 (fiasco) that Roncalli performed was to place the red hat onto Montini. We know what happened in June 1963 (another fiasco), Montini was "elected" pope. The conclusion of the evil council, the concilium headed by a Freemason-in hiding Annibale Bugnini and six (6) protestant ministers "issued" the Novus Ordo, new sacraments, the consecration to Satan. . .
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Thank you, drivocek. I recall hearing Malachi Martin explain that some woman
who was a well-known housekeeper in the Vatican was heard explaining to
someone else that the reason Roncalli was elected Pope even though he was
not well and not expected to live long, was so that he could make it possible
for Montini to be elected after all, even though he had been "exiled to Milan."
I think it may be in one of his books, such as Windswept House, not sure.
BTW:
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Uh... grammar?? Potes and Aude are not Latin words.
Quantum potestantum audi = As much as possible, greatly hear thou me.
I studied Latin for 5 years in the seminary. . . Quantum Potes
Whatever you are able to do . . . Tantum Aude . . . suchly dare to do!
-
Neil: The reason that I used the book as an example was that Frere Michel specifically made mention of a Swedish Intelligence agent who brought photos and docuмentation to Pope Pius XII. Available from www.fatima.org is the trilogy of Frere Michel (The Whole Truth About The Third Secret of Fatima. The third volume expends info on this matter.
Now the reason: +Fellay stated that it was a French agent but it was rather a Swedish agent. Roncalli was not "brought in" for the sake of merely laying groundwork for Montini as another member posted. Roncalli (33rd degree from his time in Paris) apparently replaced another conclave member at the behest of B'nai Brith and his "usefulness" (goyim) was to call the VII with further plans therewith; yes, Roncalli "red-hatted" Montini and we all know what he as a freemasonic - agent Destroyer accomplished.
Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!
Quote from Neil:
Thank you, drivocek. I recall hearing Malachi Martin explain that some woman
who was a well-known housekeeper in the Vatican was heard explaining to
someone else that the reason Roncalli was elected Pope even though he was
not well and not expected to live long, was so that he could make it possible
for Montini to be elected after all, even though he had been "exiled to Milan."
I think it may be in one of his books, such as Windswept House, not sure.
-
I never heard about the 16 March 2012 letter from Card. Levada, approved by the Pope, that says the SSPX "does not have the right to oppose what the Church taught yesterday with what She is teaching today," and if the SSPX does, they reject the authority of the pope and are schismatic. Then, according to Bp. Fellay, Rome told him to forget about that letter!
This is just one of many contradictions in Rome that Bp. Fellay exposes.
-
This is just one of many contradictions in Rome that Bp. Fellay exposes.
He's been exposing such contradictions in Rome (in that same recycled talk) for years now. Which begs the question, if Rome is so unreliable, how could you trust them to make any kind of agreement with them? And if the Pope is so powerless against liberal Cardinals and bishops, how is the Pope who is allegedly so supportive of the SSPX supposed to resist these same bishops when they oppose the SSPX? None of it makes any sense.
-
I liked the part, circa 50 min. in, where he says he doesn't like the words "licit"; he prefers just calling the New Mass evil. :)
-
This is just one of many contradictions in Rome that Bp. Fellay exposes.
He's been exposing such contradictions in Rome (in that same recycled talk) for years now. Which begs the question, if Rome is so unreliable, how could you trust them to make any kind of agreement with them? And if the Pope is so powerless against liberal Cardinals and bishops, how is the Pope who is allegedly so supportive of the SSPX supposed to resist these same bishops when they oppose the SSPX? None of it makes any sense.
Exactly! Read then Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts to the bishops of Chile right after the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. The Pope has NOT changed his thinking regarding the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council and the notion of Tradition. On that alone I am amazed that Bishop Fellay would try to "work" with these Romans. Are they modernists? Yes or No? If they are, then how can you agree on anything?
In the conference, Bishop Fellay never once says that the Pope is a modernist. His fellow bishop, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, had some rather strong words about this Pope. Simply read "Faith Imperiled by Reason." So we are left to believe that the Pope is really a friend of Tradition even though under Bp. Fellay's own admission he is still attached to the Council? Talk about a contradiction!
Also, the whole talk is full of conjecture or unsubstantiated incidents which Bishop Fellay says we should trust are true because he says so. I found the conference, "interesting" (lol) on some points but by and large a political talk used simply to justify his misguided actions. It is very, very different from the substantive talks that the other bishops have given.
Regarding the modernists in Rome, as someone said, it is a "dialogue of the deaf."
-
Does anyone here have the picture of Paul VI's mom's tomb Bp. Fellay said, at the end of this conference, he had someone take for him? Thanks
-
I fixed a few things in this, from an earlier post...
There is another thread with more transcription segments (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fellay-conference-OLMC-12-28-12-Transcription) for those interested.
Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX
OLMC Conference
Dec. 28th 2012
Feast of the Holy Innocents
Beginning minute 1:07:00
…
1:07:00
It means their seminary was a tragedy, and which Mass did they have at their seminary? The new mass. [smile audible] So you see, [smacks lips] uuhh, what is going to happen in the future now? I don’t know. I say, “Be ready.” Can be.. can be nyep again. We know that. Uhh, excommunication. Will it really happen or not? I think so long as the Pope is alive, I hardly believe it, but.. I really don’t know. If they manage to convince him that we are really against the Council, it could happen. It think it could happen.
And, I may say well, in any case, that’s the way they treat us, in any case, now, already now: they treat us – as excommunicated. That’s the situation. So it doesn’t change anything for us, so I say: “Don’t fear.” We know it, we know what it [big chuckle] means. And uh [smacks lips] I’d say, that’s not what is moving us. What is moving us is the salvation of the souls. We know that going the way that the Church goes now, thousands and millions of souls get lost. That’s what we don’t want! That’s why we want the Church to come back to its tradition. And we know that one day it will happen – how, when, this is really not in our hands. We have to do our job, our duty. The rest is in the hands of God.
1:09:00
Will it last long? Will it be short? I have seven ideas. But they are pure opinion and perspective. What I see, is that those that are really STICKING to the Council are those who made it, and those who implement[ed] it. That means: the OLDER generation – those who are in power now. But I see is that they are not followed. The younger generation, they don’t follow that way. A very interesting. I can [can’t?] understand that, because they don’t have this uhh [smacks lips] uhh, how do you say? uhh, effective relation. The Council, for the younger generation, is not their baby. The Council for them, it’s something that happened in the last MILLENIUM. So WAY IN THE PAST – what they see, what they experience is a disaster situation of the Church, a ruin. And they’re not happy with that! They’re frustrated, and so they tried to look for something, and when they see and they hear about Tradition, they are very interested – and I see these, already now. I can really tell you, we have priests, in the modern, who really are serious, really serious, and who want, and who question the Council. I got men, several messages of that type.
Even more amazing, I saw somewhere a reflection, it was a [recording skips] Eng-ish uhh, pastor who said, “That’s amazing. But about a half of the new seminarians they have a relation with the old Mass. And French priest, [skips] I said to him, “Well, you know, that’s about the same in France.” Well, in France, if you look at the situation now, this year, for example, ten percent of the newly ordained French [priests] are of the Society. The Society is already representing today, if you look at the new ordination, 10% of all the [ordinations] of France. If you add to this, those who are ordained by, if you say, Ecclesia Dei and so on, you come to more than ¼, twenty-five percent. That means that the bishops are losing control on, at already now, a quarter of the Church in France [big smile audible]. And their figgers (figures) are dramatic. The average age in France for the [priests] is above 70. More than half of the [priests] in France are above 75. You can calculate as you want. In 5 years, that will mean they are above 80. Because you have no younger coming. That means we are in front of a COL-LAPSE! – of the Church in France. It’s so serious, that the [bishops] have already prepared a shrinking of the dioceses for 2,015 by 1/3 ….. 1/3 of France wwwhhhhtt – wiped out of the map! That’s the situation.
1:13:00
They are sterile! And I may say you find the same figgers (figures) with a little bit of difference of time everywhere. Dioceses of Rome: how many ordinations for the diocese of Rome, [priests] from the place – how many, in one year? ONE. One only priest in the diocese of Rome!
Take Island [Ireland]. They have less than ten seminarians for the whole Island new seminarians. We have more than …
This is the situation of the Church. Istying. (It’s dying.) And so, you have, that’s perfectly understandable: the younger generation, they’re not happy with that! Of course they are not. What is interesting, we start to have now bishops, bishops who think that we are right. They don’t appo – open the mouth. Because [big giggle] it’s too danger for them [dangerous for them], they know. But even if they open the mouth, wwwhhhhtt! They be never, they be [de]capitated. Do you know it goes so far, one of these [bishops] directly ask[ed] me, he say [said], I want to say the Tridentine Mass every day, but if I do so, I will not be able to stain [stay in] my diocese. So what should I do? Stain my diocese, trying to do some good there, or, leave my diocese and say the Tridentine Mass?*i Well, I answered him, “Well, do both! That means, say the Mass every day, and stay in your diocese and try to do the good there. Big fight, well, anyway, uuhh.
We have now, a number of priests, of bishops, it’s new, but it’s real, it’s true! Once again, they may not be courageous enough to speak out*ii but it’s true. Because the situation is still very, very difficult.*iii This is increasing. It’s very interesting.*iv They are not the majority, no? But if you compare 5 years ago, it’s an ENORMOUS PROGRESS! And I find them a little bit every-where [pronounced as two words]. When Father Schtilling (sp?) uhh, gave a conference in Rome last autumn, four bishops asked him to preach their retreat for their priests, in their [dioceses]. Seven of these bishops learned to say the Tridentine Mass. Some from Central America, some from Africa, some from Asia [smile audible]. It’s coming, it’s little by little. It is coming. It’s a big fight, and we are in this fight and we must not abandon this fight. Of course, we must not burn ourselves.*v One must be very, very prudent. No doubt about that. But we have to foster this movement. You see? This Church is the Catholic Church, it’s OUR Church! It’s sick, full of sickness, yes?*vi So, be prudent.*vii We are not going to abandon the Church – no! If someone is sick in your family, you don’t say, “Get lost!” It’s your father! He’s sick! You take care of him! You don’t let him, say I don’t want anything to do with you – no!*viii
And the same with the Church! It’s OUR Church! It’s sick, we pray for it, we do what we can. We try not to be burned, once again [smile is audible]. So we take our.. our.. our.. precautions. We must – there’s no other way?*ix Now, when will the time come? This is very difficult to answer. I frankly, personally, I don’t think that these [this is] possible until the head is in our favor. Because the fight is too, too heavy. And the head, that means the Pope, must be absolutely convinced of the necessity of Tradition. The fight might continue in the Church, but as long as we don’t have that, I don’t see really any concrete, serious possibility to go ahead, because it’s too dangerous, too dangerous. We have many enemies, many enemies. But look and that’s very interesting. Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The ENEMIES of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the [Modernists]! The most opposed that the Society would be recognized as a Catholic: the ENEMIES of the Church! Interesting, isn’t it? More than that, what was the point?
1:19:00
What did they say to Rome? They said, “You must oblige these people to accept Vatican II. That’s also VERY interesting, isn’t it? People whom [sic] from OUTSIDE the Church, who were clearly during centuries, were enemies of the Church, say to Rome, if you want to accept these people, you MUST oblige them to accept the Council. Isn’t that interesting? Oh, it is! I think it’s FANTASTIC! Because it shows that Vatican II is THEIR THING! Not the Church’s – THEY see, the ENEMIES of the Church see THEIR benefit in the Council. Very interesting! And so, I may say that’s the kind of argument we’re going to use with Rome. Trying to make them reflect.. trying to make them reflect.
I say, [smacks lips] the situation is not desperate, no. It’s not worse than before. Still the same. There’s some hope. I don’t think for right for now, but for us, we just continue. This line, which has been so clearly given by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is so clear, this faithfulness to the past.*x Is so, so balanced, and right; we see all these fruits. It’s undeniable, let’s continue, until better times. Now how long will it last? I don’t know!! Some pretend that I said, that I don’t know if in four year, but I don’t know in how many years. (There will be an agreement)*xi – I have absolutely no idear! The only thing I say is, first,,,,,,*xii agreement is not the right word. But “recognition, normalization.” We have a right: we are Catholics and we have a right to that label. But that does not mean that we are going to change our self to get it! [smile audible]*xiii No,,,,,, we know that these [this] tradition is the future of the Church. And so we must work that it comes back. Do what we can. We see that these [this] influence of the tradition ees [is] gaining. Also isn’t this interesting? We are, we are making our point, little by little; an example, look at this year, they tried to celebrate the fifty [years] of the Council. Amazing to see how they feel obliged to justify themselves against our attacks. They didn’t do that before. Now they feel obliged to justify. I give you another example which is little thing but is, can tell something.[smacks lips] You know that just before he became a pope, Benedict XVI gave a Communion to a Protestant, to a Jose Schutz, it was at the funeral for John Paul II. Cardinal Ratzinger went and gave Communion to Jose Schutz Taize (?). Now, he said, a little bit later on, he said [smile audible] to his uuhh, to his people a little close to him, what were his thoughts [meaning to say he divulged the intentions he had held as he had given this Communion], and you know what, was he thinking about when he was giving this Communion to this Jose Schutz? He said to them, to his close people [smile audible] I thought, “What’s the Society going to say?”*xiv So you see, we are in his mind, his conscience, his BAD conscience. HUHehunh. {mischievous chuckle) It’s very interesting. Very interesting to see that! Because it shows, that say we, so to say we are there, we are GAINING in influence there. That does not mean that everything is fine. You probably heard that the very last days, now they have decided to make Paul VI a blessed. To work for the beatification of Paul VI. That’s UNBELIEVABLE! Well again we PROTEST against that.*xv
It’s wwwhhhh (air) well, the words are failing, it’s so incredible. I give you just two facts, two facts: One, the tomb of the mother of Paul VI, this is verified, so it’s not hearsay.*xvi I did send someone to verify what I tell you now, and we took photos. The tomb of the mother of Paul VI is a MAS-on-ic [Masonic] tomb. With all the MAS-on-ic symbols. It’s a fact. How can a Pope allow his mother to have a MAS-on-ic tomb? Should help people to reflect.
Another one, even more serious. We say, “even more serious.” And under Pius XII, you know you had Communist Russia, was persecuting the Catholics, and suddenly, someone said to the Pope, “You have a traitor in your house, in the Vatican, who is dealing with Moscow against you.” Pius XII did not want to believe it. But the person, who was the Lutheran bishop of Helsinki, gave the proof, provided the proof to Pius XII. His proof were brought to the Pope by I may say, a secret agent, he was a French military, and this is all docuмented, it is not hearsay.*xvii And so the Pope got the proof, that the traitor was the future Paul VI*xviii When he knew that, he kicked him out of the Vatican and he made him the bishop of Milan. So there, we’ve got Paul VI after John XXIII.*xix And now they want to make him a “blessed.”*xx Really? You think, they, they have lost, I don’t know, all of their mind. It’s incredible, incredible. My impression, that they try, they try to canonize, they have tried to beatify all these popes that have brought in all these novelties – why?*xxi Because they know they are [at] the end of their thing. And they want to make like a mon-YOU-men [a monument] that will stay in the ages by CANONIZING all these things.*xxii Now that’s my impression; maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my impression once again. Why insisting in making all of that, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, all Blessed: WHY THAT? [Good question!] Why that? If you start like that you can make saint everybody. [Good point.]
1:27:38
It’s really, they change the meaning of holiness. John Paul II explained that, he said, “I want to make so many saints that, to show that the vocation to holiness is universal, that means that everybody is called to be a saint.” Can be understood correctly. But if you start to make everybody a saint, you canonize everybody, there’s something wrong somewhere.
Now, just to show you that things are not well, that is to say, there is some hope somewhere; I am not optimistic of this situation.*xxiii If you want another example when we finish with this, an image of what kind of time do we have, or are we in. At a certain moment, towards the end of winter, you see on the trees new buds, they just come out. It’s a little thing there. When you see that, you know, spring will come. But you start to say, spring is there, people will tell you, hey, come on. It’s winter! It’s freezing! It’s snowing! It’s icy! It’s windy! Don’t say it’s spring! It’s not true! It’s winter! And we say, “Both are right. It’s still winter.” And then I say, if you look at the situation in the Church, it’s still winter. But we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming.
And now we have a very, very, delicate moment. These buds, they have a certain time they have to come out. If they come out too quickly, they might be frozen, and the new flowers will be demolished.*xxiv That’s why we have to be very, very prudent, before having these buds come out. [chuckle audible] But I may say, that’s precisely where we are now. That’s very delicate time between winter and spring. There is hope for the Church, no doubt, but don’t be too optimistic, neither. And we must keep this very prudent balance, very prudent balance; trying to make things go forward, the same time not pushing ourselves in it, too far away; or burning ourselves or killing ourselves.*xxv So people who fear, I understand them, but we’re not going there. No, no, we’re not. We don’t want to demolish what we have done for 30-40 years. That would be crazy, so we want to be, and we are certainly prudent. No need to throw ourselves into impossible situation.
But uhh, [smacks lips] we’re still in the fight, that’s all. And continue to pray, to pray the Blessed Virgin Mary; pray the Rosary! It remains our, one of our main weapons.*xxvi We must continue to defend the Faith. Not change. We have nothing to change.*xxvii The faith is above time, what was true is true, and will be true. We don’t need to change anything there, And, [smacks lips] well, one day the Lord will put again order in His Church. We must not forget that. It’s His Church, and he remains the boss. Our Lord is the boss. He’s in control. This sometimes we forget. There is nothing happening in, on the earth that would be out of control.*xxviii Our Lord dared to say there is not one air [hair] that is falling from our head, without His permission. Not one air. So there is nothing happening on the earth, nothing, nothing evil, which could happen without the permission of God. God is the master. You may wonder, well why does He allow all these things? Well, He knows. [chuckles] He knows better than we why He does that. But what we must remember, is that He didn’t put us in that situation, and God, whenever, the last temptation or trial, to happen, He provides the grace we need to face that situation, to win, to go through it and not to fail. Remember that. We are in difficult situation, yes, it’s true. Every day is hard. The world goes down; it’s unbelievable what is happening there. Nevertheless, God allows that first, and while allowing that, He keeps us wanting what we need to behave as Catholics today, to make our salvation today. Don’t fear! On the contrary, count on Him! But put the price (?), pray. Do your duty of state. Be faithful to do your things. But Our Lord promised that He will, He will give us the faith we need to be faithful in the great things. He said it.
And of course, go to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is clear that she has been given to us, especially for this time. She’s our heavenly mother. There is a little phrase which is impressive in Fatima: “God has put in her hands the peace of nations.”*xxix She’s really the queen: the queen of heaven and earth, even the peace of nations is in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Not to speak about the peace, uuh, how do you say, the spiritual peace, the peace with God, the fight against the sin. And so really stay close to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
And this time I promise I finish, we will consecrate, we want to consecrate our Society to St. Joseph. Why? Because St. Joseph, he’s the patron of the Church. He’s the protector of the Church. And remember in Fatima, that’s also something very interesting [smile audible]. On the 13th of October, the Blessed Virgin Mary announced the miracle of the sun, and she said she would come and bless the earth with her Son, AND with St. Joseph,*xxx with the Child Jesus, blessing the earth, on, when you had the miracle of the sun. So you have the Blessed Virgin Mary, you have the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Yes, that’s why I say the first part, the essential of the Message of Fatima, that you also have St. Joseph. That’s he’s the patron, the protector of the Church, and that [in] this time that is so hard, we want to consecrate the Society, and all of you, all of us, to St. Joseph. So to this we happen on the 19th of March, which is the Feast of St. Joseph, so I invite all of you to prepare, to prepare that date, to prepare that consecration. We will, of course provide the ne-CES-sa-ry [necessary ~ NOT "accessory"] docuмent, for that, uuhh, for that great, great E-vent [event],
And so, well, in conclusion, the fight continues. I may say nothing new, just fight continues, as ever before. And so let’s finish by entrusting ourselves to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and I will give you the blessing [smile audible]*xxxi Sal-ve Re-gi-na (Simple tone Gregorian Chant)…*xxxii
Sit donet Domini benedictum…
Adjutorium nostrum in nomini Domini
Benedixio Dei omnipotentis, Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti, descendat super vos et maneat semper. Amen.
i This is rich. +Fellay should tell him the truth: “Follow my example, and stop saying the true Mass, because that way you can be obedient to your superior.”
ii Example: Bishop Tissier, who is not courageous enough to speak out. Is that what +Fellay is thinking?
iii Yeah, he’s thinking about +de Mallerais, all right, for whom the situation is very, very difficult. Check.
iv Absolutely. Very interesting that YOU ARE MAKING IT INCREASE, because it is YOU who is making it very, very difficult for +de Mallerais, you who speak with forked tongue!
v How not to abandon the fight: keep expelling your best priests, who speak out against the errors of Vatican II, etc., and by all means do not burn yourselves – by showing the world that you are not afraid to punish even your own brother bishops who are opposed to your operation ѕυιcιdє! Because giving the impression that you are not accommodating to the errors of the world would be burning yourselves.. NOT!
vi He is giving us a list of reasons to NOT make any ‘deal’ with apostate Rome, which is full of sickness.
vii Am I the only one waiting for a definition of their word, prudent? Fr. Pfeiffer’s definition so far makes the best sense: When you hear them say prudence, remember they’re talking about cowardice!
viii Let me get this straight: but when it’s your own brother bishop who you believe is “sick,” you throw him out on his ear, correct? – unless he conforms to your unreasonable demands of “Silence! Obedience!”
ix Perhaps one may recall a recent papal dissemination regarding a particular form of “precautions?”
x When I hear him say “clear…faithfulness to the past,” there is something that does not sound quite believable, somehow, it’s in the tone, pitch of voice: saying words he does not believe, is my impression.
xi The pace of his words is painfully slow, as if he’s afraid of making a mistake he will regret for two more years or whatever, but when he says, “There will be an agreement,” it is literally 4 times faster than normal.
xii 6 commas in a row indicates a PREGNANT pause because 6 is an imperfect number.
xiii Is that why you’re kicking out all the priests and bishops who insist on keeping a firm grasp on the traditions that they have received from Apostolic Tradition, namely +ABL ~ which, curiously, is the same abbreviation that Latin grammar uses for the ablative declension, which may entail a passing on from antiquity.
xiv He most likely was worried about what Bishop Richard Williamson was going to say, not +Fellay!
xv If you protest against that, then why is your “protest” only heard here, when you are preaching to the choir, and, if +W puts any such thing in print you come crying bloody murder that he’s “disobedient?”
xvi But what if someone reads this on the Internet, doesn't that make it a rumor?
xvii But what if someone reads this on the Internet, doesn't that make it a rumor?
xviii Sloppy scholarship: if Pius XII had been told this man would become a future pope, he would have taken much more serious measures than merely sending him to Milan, for crying out loud!
xix But wait: we also have S.G. +Fellay after S.G. Schmidberger!! Isn’t that very interesting, too???
xx Well, you won’t have to worry about that problem for yourself, because once you make your ‘deal’ and the Romans have had their way with you ~ ubi pervincerebunt vos, they will cast you off like you did +W.
xxi What a hypocrite! This is precisely the same thing that the speaker has been doing to the Society – bringing in novelties! – and abandoning the principles of the Founder, which at the level of the S.G. is the same kind of imprudent action as it would be for the See of Peter to make an erroneous beatification.
xxii Listen to the pot calling the kettle black! What is +Fellay doing these days, if not trying to establish his own little Menzingen fiefdom in the history books, while he kicks out good priests right and left, and even his own, SENIOR bishop, +W, without a shred of real evidence, but only his pet, blanket accusations of “disobedience” when he has no jurisdiction whatsoever, and nothing objective to criticize, and that is docuмented. Who is it, who is the worst of the lot? Well, we would suppose it is those who have the higher office, the Pope and cardinals, but that does not mean the Society S.G. can do what he wants while criticizing the hierarchy above us all for the same kind of errors he himself perpetrates on the Church!
xxiii Once again, +F is giving a list of reasons why the Society should NOT pursue any ‘deal’ with Rome, nor should it be taking steps to go soft on the errors of the unclean spirit of Vatican II. But he pursues a ‘deal’ nevertheless, as though he has some kind of demented DEATH WISH for himself and all of us.
xxiv He has a certain precision with his pronunciation of “demolished” that makes me convinced he has been practicing that word in private quite a bit lately, perhaps in regards to talking about Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson. It’s so that he can describe convincingly to native English speakers what he has been doing.
xxv I detect that same tone quality with “killing ourselves” that I do when he speaks the word “demolished.”
xxvi But are we going to hear about the collective intention for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Why not? Could it be that it’s because Fellay has fallen away from the real fight, even while he pretends to be “still in the fight?” Could it be that he has become one of the False Friends of Fatima, who pay lip service to Our Lady, but no longer uses his office to promote the fulfillment of her most simple request? Pray the Rosary, yes, but what about the Consecration? What about even mentioning penance – oh, wait, right: penance means putting more money in the Menzingen-collection.
xxvii Now I’m really sorry but this is a damned LIE. If there’s ‘nothing to change,’ then why did you expel +W? He has certainly not changed anything. Or Fr. Chazal or Fr. Cardozo or any of the others? Who is doing the changing – WHILE YOU STAND HERE AND SAY THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE???
xxviii That tone again, in that “demolished” that “killing ourselves” now “out of control.”
xxix And God has put IN YOUR HANDS, the power to call the world’s Catholics to offer their prayers, Rosaries, sacrifices for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and you could open your otherwise big mouth to utter the words… but .. NNNOOOOOOOO!
xxx ERROR. Our Lady did NOT say that SHE would bless the earth. She said that St. Joseph and her Son would bless the earth. The Fatima children were even better at ecclesiology than +Fellay! They explained to many tourists and questioning faithful that Our Lady would not give a blessing, but that it is the place of her Son and her husband and the priests to give the world blessings: women do not give blessing to the world like priests do, or like the Pope and Bishops can do FOR RUSSIA!
xxxi As he deliberately (how could it be otherwise) neglects to make any mention of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, made by the Pope and all the bishops of the world – he is a bishop, after all, would he even bother to join in? For he has no jurisdiction to lose if he does not. Oh, maybe if he makes the ‘deal’ FIRST, and then the Pope can threaten to rescind the ‘deal’ if +Fellay doesn’t join in the Collegial Consecration. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
xxxii 1:37 – A very slow tempo for the Gregorian Chant Salve Regina. I guess music isn’t his first attribute either…
To help the CI reader see the indecies I have bolded them. They were
not showing up otherwise, as the superscript function is not read by this
system. Also, I have bolded all the phrases here that say "isn't it
interesting" or "that's fantastic" or "they are interested" or such, which
are obvious attempts to artificially inject enthusiasm into an otherwise
mundane and dry speech of little interest. There are no less than fifteen
such attempts here in this segment of the conference, which is less than
1/4 of the whole. Therefore there could easily be 3 or 4 times this many in
the entire content. That would mean 50 vain attempts to make a dull and
dreary speech seem somehow "interesting."
It's rather alarming to me that so many people are oblivious to the smarmy
tactics and slovenly delivery habits that +Fellay uses. If he were a
conservative activist fighting the good fight like this, the Liberals would be
all over his case, crying "FOUL!" but since he's promoting Liberalism,
basically, they give him a free pass. It's up to us to pick up the slack.
:geezer: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! :cheers: :king: <---------baby new year
^ Father Time
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riu-Psedw18
Uploaded by a modernist.
Your post was (appropriately?) altered automatically.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riu-Psedw18
Uploaded by a modernist.
Yes, it is too bad an ex-seminarian of Bp. Williamson became so anti-Bp. Williamson, it seems. Oremus pro eum.
-
Has Bp. Fellay mentioned the Bp. Williamson expulsion in any public conference? That silence speaks quite a lot.
-
This information, I think, is very important for the mainstream Conciliar Catholics (who are conservative) to know. I appreciate such verifiable information as decisions regarding whether one should really be in the SSPX camp or wait are made on proofs rather than hearsay media reports from both sides.[color=darkblue][/color]
-
This information, I think, is very important for the mainstream Conciliar Catholics (who are conservative) to know. I appreciate such verifiable information as decisions regarding whether one should really be in the SSPX camp or wait are made on proofs rather than hearsay media reports from both sides.
I wouldn't put too much weight on this talk as Bp Fellay himself said several times throughout that the things he's saying are not verifiable.
Funny that he's so dependent on rumors to determine his course of action.
-
That's why it's one of our first major requirements that we will have our own jurisdiction of the faithful. And, amazingly, this point has been granted. Which means that our apostolate would be independent from the Bishops. That's why, in the conditions which have posed, er, during the chapter, you find this point in the less important - it's one of the major! - but as we already got it, we did not emphasise it, because we already have it, you see? That's not mean that it is less important. No! It's very important! Major! If we don't have it, no way, to, to go in...
Here we have, for the second time now from one of those present at the General Chapter, the suggestion that the 2012 General Chapter statement must be interpreted rather than simply read as written. Why is it that the (30?) top men of the Society can't produce a one-page statement which simply says what they mean for it to convey.
-
This is just one of many contradictions in Rome that Bp. Fellay exposes.
He's been exposing such contradictions in Rome (in that same recycled talk) for years now. Which begs the question, if Rome is so unreliable, how could you trust them to make any kind of agreement with them? And if the Pope is so powerless against liberal Cardinals and bishops, how is the Pope who is allegedly so supportive of the SSPX supposed to resist these same bishops when they oppose the SSPX? None of it makes any sense.
Exactly! Read then Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts to the bishops of Chile right after the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. The Pope has NOT changed his thinking regarding the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council and the notion of Tradition. On that alone I am amazed that Bishop Fellay would try to "work" with these Romans. Are they modernists? Yes or No? If they are, then how can you agree on anything?
In the conference, Bishop Fellay never once says that the Pope is a modernist. His fellow bishop, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, had some rather strong words about this Pope. Simply read "Faith Imperiled by Reason." So we are left to believe that the Pope is really a friend of Tradition even though under Bp. Fellay's own admission he is still attached to the Council? Talk about a contradiction!
Also, the whole talk is full of conjecture or unsubstantiated incidents which Bishop Fellay says we should trust are true because he says so. I found the conference, "interesting" (lol) on some points but by and large a political talk used simply to justify his misguided actions. It is very, very different from the substantive talks that the other bishops have given.
Regarding the modernists in Rome, as someone said, it is a "dialogue of the deaf."
:applause:
-
I'll say first here that this talk in NO WAY covers all which needs to be explained. There are NUMEROUS questions left unanswered for such an important time in SSPX history. Also, the very idea that a "no strings" agreement is a good idea is still contrary to the 2006 General Chapter declaration and the good sense of Archbishop Lefebvre.
However, given the picture Bp Fellay is attempting to paint in this talk, we reach a crucial point in this paragraph... a letter from the Pope himself.
It's the first time that the Pope does answer me, [0:55:00] anyway, and in this letter which is dated from the 30th June, we have these following points.
First he says: "I did agree that we change the text." Then he said: "There are three points which you must accept, so that you will be recognised. The first is that it is the Magisterium which is the judge of what is Traditional or not." And, well that's true, that's point of Faith, so. But if we say yes they will use it against us, of course, so it's dangerous. Second point: "You must accept that the Council is integrant[sic] part of Tradition." That the Council Vatican II is traditional! Imagine! [0:56:00] During forty years themselves have said the contrary. Now they say it's traditional. And we say "Beg your pardon?" We say, "Look at the reality!" And the third point, we must accept that the New Mass is valid and licit. But that point I told them, "Well, we rarely use the word licit, we just simply say about the New Mass that it is evil."
What's disturbing to me here is what's missing. He has three chances here to say that one of these points is a deal-breaker, and yet he doesn't say it. He leads you to believe that such is the case with comments like, "we just simply say about the New Mass that it is evil," but he fails on three points to simply say, "We can't agree to that." Why? It seems like such an obvious thing to say.
-
from the other thread:
Thank you, dear the recusant for all this work !
Yes, thank you!
But now, we must comment this conference and make serious answers, with good arguments, otherwise, someone told me (and he is right) that it is dangerous to publish Bp Fellay's talks without showing clearly all the traps, the false things etc... So we must answer, methodically, paragraph after paragraph : it is important.
I agree, and...
I'll say first here that this talk in NO WAY covers all which needs to be explained. There are NUMEROUS questions left unanswered for such an important time in SSPX history.
Maybe as part of the commentary we could compile a list of these unanswered questions.
...However, given the picture Bp Fellay is attempting to paint in this talk, we reach a crucial point in this paragraph... a letter from the Pope himself.
It's the first time that the Pope does answer me, [0:55:00] anyway, and in this letter which is dated from the 30th June, we have these following points.
First he says: "I did agree that we change the text." Then he said: "There are three points which you must accept, so that you will be recognised. The first is that it is the Magisterium which is the judge of what is Traditional or not." And, well that's true, that's point of Faith, so. But if we say yes they will use it against us, of course, so it's dangerous. Second point: "You must accept that the Council is integrant[sic] part of Tradition." That the Council Vatican II is traditional! Imagine! [0:56:00] During forty years themselves have said the contrary. Now they say it's traditional. And we say "Beg your pardon?" We say, "Look at the reality!" And the third point, we must accept that the New Mass is valid and licit. But that point I told them, "Well, we rarely use the word licit, we just simply say about the New Mass that it is evil."
What's disturbing to me here is what's missing. He has three chances here to say that one of these points is a deal-breaker, and yet he doesn't say it. He leads you to believe that such is the case with comments like, "we just simply say about the New Mass that it is evil," but he fails on three points to simply say, "We can't agree to that." Why? It seems like such an obvious thing to say.
Yes. If you read carefully, strictly speaking, he doesn't even say he disagrees.
Second point: "You must accept that the Council is integrant[sic] part of Tradition." That the Council Vatican II is traditional! Imagine! [0:56:00] During forty years themselves have said the contrary. Now they say it's traditional. And we say "Beg your pardon?" We say, "Look at the reality!"
Note that he doesn't say, "but of course it is not compatible with Tradition." I think it was Neil Obstat who pointed out from even much older talks, that he will say these things like, "And we say "Beg your pardon?" We say, "Look at the reality!", which really doesn't say anything conclusive. A Trad. audience will assume that he means "of course it isn't Traditional", but he doesn't explicitly say it here.
But... here is something he did say:
Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition – a position which many in the society have vocally disputed – Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.
„I would hope so,“ he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
„The pope says that... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21085&min=0),“ the bishop said. „The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?“
And:
We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.
The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.
The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.
That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.
-
Second point: "You must accept that the Council is integrant[sic] part of Tradition." That the Council Vatican II is traditional! Imagine! [0:56:00] During forty years themselves have said the contrary. Now they say it's traditional. And we say "Beg your pardon?" We say, "Look at the reality!"
Note too, he doesn't say, "During forty years we have said the contrary."
But he knows perfectly well that not only have many defenders of VII tried to say it was reconcilable with Tradition, but that Pope Benedict is among them, with his "Hermeneutic of Continuity". (http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/Smileys/fishy/rolleyes.gif) It is the SSPX who "During forty years has said the contrary."
At least until the April 2012 docuмent he sent to Rome, and the CNS interview.
-
That's why it's one of our first major requirements that we will have our own jurisdiction of the faithful. And, amazingly, this point has been granted. Which means that our apostolate would be independent from the Bishops. That's why, in the conditions which have posed, er, during the chapter, you find this point in the less important - it's one of the major! - but as we already got it, we did not emphasise it, because we already have it, you see? That's not mean that it is less important. No! It's very important! Major! If we don't have it, no way, to, to go in...
Here we have, for the second time now from one of those present at the General Chapter, the suggestion that the 2012 General Chapter statement must be interpreted rather than simply read as written. Why is it that the (30?) top men of the Society can't produce a one-page statement which simply says what they mean for it to convey.
Yes, good point!
Monkey see...Monkey do -the Vatican II way...
-
Here's a bit of commentary on at least part of it, FWIW:
Bishop Fellay attempts to explain himself to the Canadian Faithful
December 2012
Transcript provided by members of Cathinfo.com
Transcript Source: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22232&min=0&num=5
Audio Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0
-----------
Dear Fathers, dear faithful,
We will try to give you a summary of what we had to go through this last year, year and a half. It’s a very Interesting time – challenging. We had to go through a major trial in the Society and so there are many things to be learned from that time. I may say so, and that is very Interesting from my position I had to experience more or less every year – sometimes every two years – one place in the Society is subject to the attacks of the devil. I use these precise words - it is not just a metaphor, it is a reality. You know the Holy Scriptures says the devil is turning around - is circulating looking to devour someone and indeed the good Lord allows that our work is or will be tested by the devil. It is not just a normal or usual trial – problems we have everywhere, problems - that is normal, that is life, whenever we have people we will have some problems – it is normal but when it is a normal problem we have a proportion between the cause and the effect and the reaction.
So we have a problem and then we have the people who react to this problem and then there is a kind of proportion. I may say this is what we would call a normal problem. When suddenly there is a total discrepancy between the real thing and the reaction, you see that the passions, that there is an explosion… it’s like a volcano that goes in the air, then you know, you know that this proportion is caused by the devil. That is his way of acting and so, as I say, it’s almost every year we have to experience one place in the Society which has to go under a major trial but just one place – one totally localized – sometimes it is a seminary – sometimes it is just one place and the difference of what happened this time is that this kind of trial was extended to almost the whole Society and that is very, very rare.
In all the history, we had two or three of those – so very few, but once again you see the same elements that is there is a problem, a real problem, and then the reaction that is totally out of control – no comparison and these are the passions which are blind. It’s violent and it starts to go in all fuses, in all directions… it’s no longer the virtues which are governed well, it is the passions and sins and many kinds of trouble and a lot of confusion. I may say the element of that time was confusion and it is Interesting to reflect on this. Why was there confusion? The problems with this confusion that some people have then lost the trust in the authority. [He got that right; now the question: why did people lose trust in authority? What authority, BTW? "the authority"?? :scratchchin:] I may say that is a major problem because when you lose the trust with the authority then you are left to yourself. Then you are alone to judge and you can no longer rely on anybody. That is the great, great problem of distrust and that is what happened. Not everybody of course but a certain part of the Society went into that kind of situation and once again if you go back to the real reality there is no ground. There is no ground so many many things that were spread around in the internet during that time were just simply false. False or even worse the contrary to what really happened. [Such as? Please list the specific falsehoods.]If I look and try to see where, or did this confusion come from, we have several elements which did not help. The first I may say probably the most deeper and the cause of all the others is that we are experiencing since years, a contradiction in Rome. [So the confusion this year came from contradiction in Rome? But we’ve been getting this contradiction in Rome for decades; why all of a sudden in AD 2012 would that cause terrible confusion within the ranks of the SSPX and its followers?] I will try to develop that point because I think it is a major one. Since 2009, [he’s been telling us about the contradictions in Rome for a lot longer than just since 2009.] I am facing directly contradiction that is instances authorities in Rome contradict themselves about us. The thing was so strong, that in June, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State, with Cardinal Bertone because of that. Well he did not give it but he asked me to see Cardinal Levada and I told him I want to see you because you people, you are contradicting yourselves about us. Some of you say that we are excommunicated, that we are out of the Church others say no there is no problem we are totally in order. It is a whole mixture there and we no longer know how to react with you or what to do with you because of this. [ridiculous; they’ve been giving us those contradictions for decades; why all of a sudden does he need to meet with them to clear it up?]
I will just give you two examples. [Which he has given numerous times before.. (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/yawn.gif)] One it was in 2009, it was just before Easter. In the beginning of March, even beginning in February already, the Secretariat of State issued a statement saying the Society does not exist and if the Society wants to be recognized by the Church it is necessary to accept totally everything the Council and the teachings of all the Popes since John XXIII until the present. So no recognition for the Society until they accept everything - all the novelties.
...[he continues to tell that same old story...]. Again, I give you an example, just that you may know that I don’t speak in the air but I have really these experiences.
[another story he’s told many times before; however, I will leave this one in, as it helps illustrate how insane it is to put your organization under such men:] There is an abbey in Germany, it is the only Trappist Abbey and the Father Abbot asked the Pope not only to go back to the Old Mass, because now it is allowed, you can do that but to go back to the old rule before the Council. And the Pope granted it and even said that he hoped that it’s an example that would be followed by many. Now six months later, this Abbot has not received any answer from Rome and he is calling a friend in Rome and he says what is happening with me. This friend who is very, very close to the Pope told him, “Well, write again to the Pope and this time send this letter to me and I will bring it to the Holy Father,” which happened. I know the story from that very person so it is not just hearsay, directly this person who was very close to the Pope told me that story, so he went to see the Pope with this letter and he asked the Pope, “What is going on with this abbey in Germany?… and the Pope said, “But it is six months since I have granted the permission!” So what, they made an inquiry and in fact it was the person in the Secretariat of State who should have transmitted the decision of the Pope but just put it in the drawer.
This man now is a cardinal, the one who sabotaged the Pope. I know the same person who did another sabotaged, well many. He just hijacked a decision of the Pope who had to be transmitted to the Prefect of the Liturgy. You see, you have to understand how Rome works. When the Pope decides something, it does not go directly to the persons; it goes through the Secretary of State. But, if you receive a letter from the Pope, it will have gone through the Secretary of State. If you write a letter to the Pope, it goes through the Secretary of State. There are some bypasses, but you must be well-placed to get them. In a sense, it is impossible to get straight to the Pope. [But it is the Pope who +F pretends is such a friend of Tradition and wants this "regularization". The Secretary of State is (almost?) always a Freemason these days. So you want to accept a deal **excuse me** – “regularization” from the Pope who has no control over his Cardinals and bishops, and with whom it is impossible to communicate directly?] And even for decisions of the Pope inside the Vatican, they go through the Secretary of State. And so, you have people in the Secretary of State who block the decisions of the Pope and don’t transmit that. I have, once again, several examples of that, so it is something I know. [There are so many things to criticize here. He emphasizes that he really knows this; well fine, I don’t think that is the big disputed point. Nevertheless:
1. it doesn’t mean the Pope is Traditional or even a friend of Tradition. All it means is, on some occasions when the Pope actually might want to do something good for a change, he is sometimes blocked by the bad Cardinals etc. around him.
2. ...bad Cardinals whom he himself appointed. Cardinals whom he could remove from their positions if he wanted to.
3. IF the Pope is so powerless against the shenanigans of his own appointed Cardinals and bishops, who are mostly against the SSPX, how is he (or especially his even more liberal successor) going to defend the SSPX after “regularization”?]
This I tell you so that you may have a background of what is going to happen. So, I know that the Pope would like to do something with us. I know that he is very attached to the Council. Very. You read the audience in 2005, the point which impressed me the most was how inconceivable it was for the Pope to have a Catholic who would reject the Council. It was so strong that in the little letter which I wrote to thank him for the audience, I had to mention that I didn’t agree with him about the Council. <…> no, we don’t accept that.
So, we have discussions. In two years, we have doctrinal discussions in Rome. These discussions, they were interesting and very frustrating at least for us, for our people. We really had the impression that they did not listen to what we said. They had just to defend the house and that’s it. And the end of the discussions were pretty hot because they told us, “You are Protestants,” and we answered them, “You are modernists.” That’s the way the discussions finished. As a matter of joke, I said, “Well, we came to one point of agreement with Rome and that is that there is no point where we agree.” [But it’s not a joke, when billions of souls are at stake, and you want to put yourself under people like this?] Just to say; and so they know that.
And, Cardinal Levada is inviting me, this is in June, is inviting me for a meeting in September, on the 14th of September. And, he says, it’s for an evaluation of the discussions. And he adds, and also to evoke some perspective for the future. But, clearly, the main topic will be the discussions, and evaluation of the discussions. So, we arrived there.
About the discussions, they said, maybe it took 3 minutes, maybe 5, but very, very short. What did they say about the discussions? They said, the discussions have reached the end, the purpose was fulfilled which was for you to expose clearly your position, that’s it. Is it good? Is it bad? Nothing. Just, you were able to expose how you think. That’s all. And then, then the proposal. Rome is going to give you canonical status and you sign this declaration. The name was “Preamble”. And what is in this preamble?
More or less every point which we would disagree, we had to accept. [Then why did they even need to discuss it at Albano, etc.. ? Why not just tell Rome, “sorry; call us when you convert.” See * below] There was something in our direction, or maybe two things: one was to say there is a legitimate discussion on certain points which make difficulty of the Council, so there is an opening on discussing difficult points. And another which we say, I may say, that's the most tricky one, the most tricky. And really tricky. Because it says: on the points which are difficult, which make difficulty of the Council, we follow the following principle. These difficult or confusing points must be understood or interpreted in coherence with all the teaching of the Church throughout the ages. So you must understand them as the Church has always taught. And we reject any kind of explanation which is opposed to what the Church has always taught. You know. That is what we have always said. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre has said, always. We say, what is clearly traditional in the Council: well, we accept, we have no way to reject that. What is doubtful, we understand it the way the Church has always taught it. And what is opposed we reject. So when you read that you say: hup, that's what we said! [Never mind that +F himself said several times during this Pontificate that the Conciliarists (and he included the current Pope) mean something different by “Tradition”, and hence, we can no longer say “we accept Vatican II in the light of Tradition.” ]
Well, there was a little, little phrase that was added to it. And the little phrase said: as we find it, so we have to interpret, to understand the things as the Church has always done and so on, as it is done in the new Catechism of the Church. [How interesting; why does this bring to mind a certain EC where a certain bishop said ”The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a 'Motu Proprio' which would accept the SSPX 'back into the Church' once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.” (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=5985) And I seem to recall that bishop being rebuked by another bishop for that EC.] Now there's a little problem there, because the new Catechism is precisely accepting all the novelties of the Council, and that's what we oppose. So in other words they pretend now to do things as we do, and they do the contrary. Big problem.
And so, so from the start this text we could not accept. [once again I refer you to* below] And that's what I told Rome: we can't accept. I told it even two times. The first time, I tried to remain broad because my aim was to demolish the frame which they were trying to impose to us. This frame is called the Hermeneutic of the Continuity. That means that we have to interpret, or to understand, they pretend that the Council is in the line of Tradition, and that's the only way, we have to the Council in the light, not only the light, but to say that the Council is traditional. And we say no, that's not true, we say, that we should that we should understand that we should understand anything that comes from Rome in the light of Tradition, it's the only Catholic way, but precisely this Council, with this Council, we can't do that because the texts are opposed to Tradition, they're contrary; [At last! He says it. Let’s keep that in mind and on record. So that begs the question: why did you say last May: “I would hope so,“ when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition. “The pope says that... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,“ the bishop said.
And why did he send this statement to the Vatican?:
“We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals. The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.
The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever. That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.”]
...what they say in the Council has been condemned before. Especially Religious Liberty, but also Ecuмenism for example, very clearly the contrary. [again, why did you say: “Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited.”?]
And so, we say: no it doesn't work. Doesn't work. But, I didn't want to go into the details, I just wanted to, so to say, to *ppprrr* to explode the frame. Because they said if I go into the details, they will change the details but they will try to remain, to remind, to keep the frame. So I say no, it doesn't work. They were not happy with it, and they called me and they asked me if I could not be more precise. [ (http://i6.ifrm.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif) When even the liberal Conciliarists, who have mastered ambiguous NewSpeak for the past 50 years, have to ask someone to be more precise… Wow. If only +F would be obedient to Rome on this point, and be precise in his speech from now on!] [0:25:09] I said OK, I will do it that, I will do that. So I sent a second answer. It was not that I would correct the first, no. It was exactly the same answer, but more precise, according to their text.
So, I sent to Rome a double no. Things seemed clear, no? But the big, big problem facing at that time was the following. Even before the 14th September, I got messages from people working in Rome, and which are friendly with us. People who have even been burned, their fingers have been burnt because they were too close to us. And they work in Rome and they are our friends. And these people told me: "The Pope is going to recognise the Society. And he's going to do that the same way he did with the excommunications. That is, without anything from your side." Pope does it: done. And I got several of these messages from several different persons, who, let's say, authenticity I cannot put in doubt. For example, one of those was a person working in Ecclesia Dei, those who are dealing with us. And this very person, after we got the text, told us: "That's not what the Pope wants!"
So you see, I got all these kind of messages which were not fitting together. [So why all the propaganda this spring, to prepare everyone for the deal?] I got an official thing, where I clearly have to say no. And I got other messages, which are not official of course, but which say "No, that's not what the Pope wants! The Pope is much more inclined towards us, you!" And the people tell me these things; they're not just someone in the Vatican. They're VERY close to the Pope. Very close. I mean, people who see him every day, or every two days, and there are very few people who see him every day. And these people, they know the Pope, they know what he thinks, and they give me this message. So what am I going to do now? I have an official message where I have to say no. I have people who tell me: "But that's not what the Pope wants!"
You see, that was a major problem. So this is confusing. [And yet you want to accept a deal with these people?] But the second problem I was in, it was impossible for me to say these things in the public. Because if I would say that, I would make things even worse. And, and Rome would say: "That's not true!" And even now, I expect Rome to say that, because I tell these things now. And if you think: "What is Bishop Fellay telling us?" I would remind you something which happened to me just a few years ago. It was with Cardinal Castrillón. Cardinal Castrillón told me the following: "What I am going to tell you now, if you repeat it, I will be forced to deny it." [And you want to accept a deal from these people? ]
Understand? I tell you something, if you repeat it, I will say no, that's not true. And he finished by saying: "The Pope and myself, we are in your favour."
But, if he tells us that he's going to say the contrary, what can I do with it? Nothing! [Exactly.]
And just to remind you, that's exactly what happened with Archbishop Lefebvre during his audience with Paul VI. Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre: "You oblige your seminarians to make an oath against me!" And when Archbishop Lefebvre said [0:30:00] that in the public, Rome made a statement saying: "That's not true. The Pope never said that to Archbishop Lefebvre!" You see how complicated it is? So it's messy, and you can't even say it. And if you try to say it, you make it even more messy. [And yet you were willing to put the future and legacy of Apb. Lefebvre's Society into this mess?]
...to be continued, if I have time....
*Based on an article published by Radio Cristiandad
11th November, 2011
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011...¿era-necesario/ (http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/¿era-necesario/)
When one becomes aware of the true content of the Doctrinal Preamble that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger received from representatives of Neo-Modernist Rome on 14th September, one wonders:
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to understand two thousand years of Catholic Tradition in the new light of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar teaching of Liberal popes?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept as doctrinal reference the Schonborn/Ratzinger catechism; a Compendium of Second Vatican Council doctrine?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept the new Code of Canon Law having greater value than the old Code?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept the Novus Ordo as legitimate?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to a demand to take a Conciliarist Profession of Faith that replaces the Oath Against Modernism?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to a demand to take an Oath of Allegiance to Neo-Modernist authorities that occupy and insult Eternal Rome?
If the answer is obvious and and overwhelming 'NO !', then one wonders:
Why did Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger not immediately reject the Preamble on 14th September?
Why hide and then continue to attempt to hide the content of the Preamble?
Why do they want to delay dealing with such a simple matter?
While awaiting the answer to reveal itself in the full light of day Catholics should remember that sources in Neo-Modernist Rome informed Femille Chrètienne that the Vatican judges that the Doctrinal Preamble performs its objective by creating and fueling a Kantian/Hegelian dialectic within SSPX.
Some suggested responses +F could have given Cardinal Levada:
Archbishop Lefebvre[/s]]We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger Pope Benedict sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. ... “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.
Archbishop Lefebvre[/s]]...it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.
-
Thought you might enjoy some comments from a blog recently cited (http://sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_december_2012.htm#catholic_youth) on the US District website:
SSPX Bp. Fellay delivers a long “state of the question” address
(http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/sspx-bp-fellay-delivers-a-long-state-of-the-question-address/)
On 28 December 2012, SSPX Superior Bishop Bernard Fellay gave a long address in English to what sounds like good sized mixed crowd at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Ontario, Canada.
He unloaded a lot of information.
The talk is 1’37″. He rambles a great deal. In between the rambling is some interesting information. I cannot say if all of it is entirely accurate. That is not the point. The fact is Bp. Fellay thinks it is accurate and he is willing to tell people about it....
70 Responses to SSPX Bp. Fellay delivers a long “state of the question” address
steve jones says:
1 January 2013 at 3:50 pm
Rambling is scarcely the word! It is bordering on the incoherent if not absurd. He should have fought harder to keep RW on board and played his hand more astutely during negotiations. Things went too quickly and he should have used the 2009 RW problem as a delaying tactic.
* Fellay’s argument is “I get confusing signals. The Curia doesn’t do what the Pope wants.” I don’t believe him. The Church has repeatedly said clearly this: “You cannot deny the Council. If a statement in the Council needs clarification, or has not yet been clarified in subsequent teaching, it can subsequently clarified. But if your position is to reject adamantly the Council, and to reject intransigently the possibility of clarification, then you reject the Magisterium of the Church itself, and then it’s over and we go separate ways.”
James Joseph says:
1 January 2013 at 8:38 pm
I listened to whole talk. No offence intended but it was rambly and I feel that his opinions kind of smacked of Modernism.
Hey look, CI was even referenced here:
jhayes says:
1 January 2013 at 9:15 pm
Here is a complete transcript with some time markings.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22232&min=45&num=5
Then go to page 10 and look for a very long post by Matthew
At the end it says: Posted Jan 2, 2013, 2:03 am
The members of the group transcribed individual sections which were then assembled by the moderator. I haven’t compared this against the audio so, if you quote from this transcript, I would first go to the time point in the tape and satisfy yourself that the transcription is accurate.
-
Comments on the +F talk from another forum:
Dec 31 2012, 11:57 PM
While I've only read what was transcribed on Cathinfo, it seems to me that BpF made use of an awful lot of unsubstantiated rumour of his own, if not outright misinformation, to try to convince his listeners that the situation in the Church is much improved versus 1988 and to thus justify his actions of recent months. Lots of anecdotes about nameless, faceless churchmen who secretly embrace tradition, rehashing of the myth of Benedict XVI's closet traditionalism and being obstructed by bad Curial officials. BpF has been bandying much if this about for some time now. Not only is it unsubstantiated rumour, to quote a good film I recently watched:
"... It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you. "
Just a brief response for the time being, since I did not want you to think that I was ignoring you or unwilling/unable to answer your challenges. I have downloaded the entire conference and shall listen to the whole thing when time allows. But a few initial comments:
You try to put the burden of proof on +Fellay ("unsubstantiated rumour"), even though he knows far more about the state of the Church and you know very little; and then you double down with entirely unsubstantiated charges of "outright misinformation."
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it's fair game for Bp. Fellay, Fr. Rostand, et al. (and their advocates here) to dismiss as "unsubstantiated rumour and outright misinformation" and to "double down" by saying that it is impermissible to use such "rumours" in discussion of the current situation, then it is fair game for me to put the burden on Bp. Fellay to substantiate his rumours or not use them. It is true that my charge of "outright misinformation" was no more substantiated than your and others' repeated charges of same against those you disagree with and I retract that.
Re: the quote "... It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you. " firstly, I was referring to these supposed closet trads in the hierarchy, not Bp. Fellay. Another way of saying it is "actions speak louder than words." Or "faith without works is dead". Is this mere "Hollywood wisdom"? I disagree with you on that point -- the martyrs are defined by their preference for death over denying our Lord, rather than secretly maintaining the faith and offering a little incense to Caesar. These closet trads BpF references are, on the other hand, doing exactly that -- offering incense to Caesar by outwardly maintaining adherence to the FALSE RELIGION that is the Novus Ordo sect while perhaps inwardly being Catholic. I therefore don't care if they claim to secretly agree with the S.S.P.X, because such faith is dead without actions to back it up.
Trust is an interesting thing.
Does Bishop Fellay trust those who passed on these pieces of information?
It seems he did.
Was his trust misplaced?
It seems it was.
Does his trust being misplaced invalidate his side of the story?
It does not.
Does his trust being misplaced invalidate the good-faith of his actions?
It does not.
The operative question in light of the above:
"Does this man have the characteristics requisite for leadership of the traditionalist movement?"
For some who are able to see past the "ten-thousand watt smile" the answer is "no."
-
Here's a bit of commentary on at least part of it, FWIW:
Bishop Fellay attempts to explain himself to the Canadian Faithful
December 2012
Transcript provided by members of Cathinfo.com
Transcript Source: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22232&min=0&num=5
Audio Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrOMMfW5n0
-----------
Dear Fathers, dear faithful,
We will try to give you a summary of what we had to go through this last year, year and a half. It’s a very Interesting time – challenging. We had to go through a major trial in the Society and so there are many things to be learned from that time. I may say so, and that is very Interesting from my position I had to experience more or less every year – sometimes every two years – one place in the Society is subject to the attacks of the devil. I use these precise words - it is not just a metaphor, it is a reality. You know the Holy Scriptures says the devil is turning around - is circulating looking to devour someone and indeed the good Lord allows that our work is or will be tested by the devil. It is not just a normal or usual trial – problems we have everywhere, problems - that is normal, that is life, whenever we have people we will have some problems – it is normal but when it is a normal problem we have a proportion between the cause and the effect and the reaction.
So we have a problem and then we have the people who react to this problem and then there is a kind of proportion. I may say this is what we would call a normal problem. When suddenly there is a total discrepancy between the real thing and the reaction, you see that the passions, that there is an explosion… it’s like a volcano that goes in the air, then you know, you know that this proportion is caused by the devil. That is his way of acting and so, as I say, it’s almost every year we have to experience one place in the Society which has to go under a major trial but just one place – one totally localized – sometimes it is a seminary – sometimes it is just one place and the difference of what happened this time is that this kind of trial was extended to almost the whole Society and that is very, very rare.
In all the history, we had two or three of those – so very few, but once again you see the same elements that is there is a problem, a real problem, and then the reaction that is totally out of control – no comparison and these are the passions which are blind. It’s violent and it starts to go in all fuses, in all directions… it’s no longer the virtues which are governed well, it is the passions and sins and many kinds of trouble and a lot of confusion. I may say the element of that time was confusion and it is Interesting to reflect on this. Why was there confusion? The problems with this confusion that some people have then lost the trust in the authority. [He got that right; now the question: why did people lose trust in authority? What authority, BTW? "the authority"?? :scratchchin:] I may say that is a major problem because when you lose the trust with the authority then you are left to yourself. Then you are alone to judge and you can no longer rely on anybody. That is the great, great problem of distrust and that is what happened. Not everybody of course but a certain part of the Society went into that kind of situation and once again if you go back to the real reality there is no ground. There is no ground so many many things that were spread around in the internet during that time were just simply false. False or even worse the contrary to what really happened. [Such as? Please list the specific falsehoods.]If I look and try to see where, or did this confusion come from, we have several elements which did not help. The first I may say probably the most deeper and the cause of all the others is that we are experiencing since years, a contradiction in Rome. [So the confusion this year came from contradiction in Rome? But we’ve been getting this contradiction in Rome for decades; why all of a sudden in AD 2012 would that cause terrible confusion within the ranks of the SSPX and its followers?] I will try to develop that point because I think it is a major one. Since 2009, [he’s been telling us about the contradictions in Rome for a lot longer than just since 2009.] I am facing directly contradiction that is instances authorities in Rome contradict themselves about us. The thing was so strong, that in June, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State, with Cardinal Bertone because of that. Well he did not give it but he asked me to see Cardinal Levada and I told him I want to see you because you people, you are contradicting yourselves about us. Some of you say that we are excommunicated, that we are out of the Church others say no there is no problem we are totally in order. It is a whole mixture there and we no longer know how to react with you or what to do with you because of this. [ridiculous; they’ve been giving us those contradictions for decades; why all of a sudden does he need to meet with them to clear it up?]
I will just give you two examples. [Which he has given numerous times before.. (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/yawn.gif)] One it was in 2009, it was just before Easter. In the beginning of March, even beginning in February already, the Secretariat of State issued a statement saying the Society does not exist and if the Society wants to be recognized by the Church it is necessary to accept totally everything the Council and the teachings of all the Popes since John XXIII until the present. So no recognition for the Society until they accept everything - all the novelties.
...[he continues to tell that same old story...]. Again, I give you an example, just that you may know that I don’t speak in the air but I have really these experiences.
[another story he’s told many times before; however, I will leave this one in, as it helps illustrate how insane it is to put your organization under such men:] There is an abbey in Germany, it is the only Trappist Abbey and the Father Abbot asked the Pope not only to go back to the Old Mass, because now it is allowed, you can do that but to go back to the old rule before the Council. And the Pope granted it and even said that he hoped that it’s an example that would be followed by many. Now six months later, this Abbot has not received any answer from Rome and he is calling a friend in Rome and he says what is happening with me. This friend who is very, very close to the Pope told him, “Well, write again to the Pope and this time send this letter to me and I will bring it to the Holy Father,” which happened. I know the story from that very person so it is not just hearsay, directly this person who was very close to the Pope told me that story, so he went to see the Pope with this letter and he asked the Pope, “What is going on with this abbey in Germany?… and the Pope said, “But it is six months since I have granted the permission!” So what, they made an inquiry and in fact it was the person in the Secretariat of State who should have transmitted the decision of the Pope but just put it in the drawer.
This man now is a cardinal, the one who sabotaged the Pope. I know the same person who did another sabotaged, well many. He just hijacked a decision of the Pope who had to be transmitted to the Prefect of the Liturgy. You see, you have to understand how Rome works. When the Pope decides something, it does not go directly to the persons; it goes through the Secretary of State. But, if you receive a letter from the Pope, it will have gone through the Secretary of State. If you write a letter to the Pope, it goes through the Secretary of State. There are some bypasses, but you must be well-placed to get them. In a sense, it is impossible to get straight to the Pope. [But it is the Pope who +F pretends is such a friend of Tradition and wants this "regularization". The Secretary of State is (almost?) always a Freemason these days. So you want to accept a deal **excuse me** – “regularization” from the Pope who has no control over his Cardinals and bishops, and with whom it is impossible to communicate directly?] And even for decisions of the Pope inside the Vatican, they go through the Secretary of State. And so, you have people in the Secretary of State who block the decisions of the Pope and don’t transmit that. I have, once again, several examples of that, so it is something I know. [There are so many things to criticize here. He emphasizes that he really knows this; well fine, I don’t think that is the big disputed point. Nevertheless:
1. it doesn’t mean the Pope is Traditional or even a friend of Tradition. All it means is, on some occasions when the Pope actually might want to do something good for a change, he is sometimes blocked by the bad Cardinals etc. around him.
2. ...bad Cardinals whom he himself appointed. Cardinals whom he could remove from their positions if he wanted to.
3. IF the Pope is so powerless against the shenanigans of his own appointed Cardinals and bishops, who are mostly against the SSPX, how is he (or especially his even more liberal successor) going to defend the SSPX after “regularization”?]
This I tell you so that you may have a background of what is going to happen. So, I know that the Pope would like to do something with us. I know that he is very attached to the Council. Very. You read the audience in 2005, the point which impressed me the most was how inconceivable it was for the Pope to have a Catholic who would reject the Council. It was so strong that in the little letter which I wrote to thank him for the audience, I had to mention that I didn’t agree with him about the Council. <…> no, we don’t accept that.
So, we have discussions. In two years, we have doctrinal discussions in Rome. These discussions, they were interesting and very frustrating at least for us, for our people. We really had the impression that they did not listen to what we said. They had just to defend the house and that’s it. And the end of the discussions were pretty hot because they told us, “You are Protestants,” and we answered them, “You are modernists.” That’s the way the discussions finished. As a matter of joke, I said, “Well, we came to one point of agreement with Rome and that is that there is no point where we agree.” [But it’s not a joke, when billions of souls are at stake, and you want to put yourself under people like this?] Just to say; and so they know that.
And, Cardinal Levada is inviting me, this is in June, is inviting me for a meeting in September, on the 14th of September. And, he says, it’s for an evaluation of the discussions. And he adds, and also to evoke some perspective for the future. But, clearly, the main topic will be the discussions, and evaluation of the discussions. So, we arrived there.
About the discussions, they said, maybe it took 3 minutes, maybe 5, but very, very short. What did they say about the discussions? They said, the discussions have reached the end, the purpose was fulfilled which was for you to expose clearly your position, that’s it. Is it good? Is it bad? Nothing. Just, you were able to expose how you think. That’s all. And then, then the proposal. Rome is going to give you canonical status and you sign this declaration. The name was “Preamble”. And what is in this preamble?
More or less every point which we would disagree, we had to accept. [Then why did they even need to discuss it at Albano, etc.. ? Why not just tell Rome, “sorry; call us when you convert.” See * below] There was something in our direction, or maybe two things: one was to say there is a legitimate discussion on certain points which make difficulty of the Council, so there is an opening on discussing difficult points. And another which we say, I may say, that's the most tricky one, the most tricky. And really tricky. Because it says: on the points which are difficult, which make difficulty of the Council, we follow the following principle. These difficult or confusing points must be understood or interpreted in coherence with all the teaching of the Church throughout the ages. So you must understand them as the Church has always taught. And we reject any kind of explanation which is opposed to what the Church has always taught. You know. That is what we have always said. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre has said, always. We say, what is clearly traditional in the Council: well, we accept, we have no way to reject that. What is doubtful, we understand it the way the Church has always taught it. And what is opposed we reject. So when you read that you say: hup, that's what we said! [Never mind that +F himself said several times during this Pontificate that the Conciliarists (and he included the current Pope) mean something different by “Tradition”, and hence, we can no longer say “we accept Vatican II in the light of Tradition.” ]
Well, there was a little, little phrase that was added to it. And the little phrase said: as we find it, so we have to interpret, to understand the things as the Church has always done and so on, as it is done in the new Catechism of the Church. [How interesting; why does this bring to mind a certain EC where a certain bishop said ”The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a 'Motu Proprio' which would accept the SSPX 'back into the Church' once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.” (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=5985) And I seem to recall that bishop being rebuked by another bishop for that EC.] Now there's a little problem there, because the new Catechism is precisely accepting all the novelties of the Council, and that's what we oppose. So in other words they pretend now to do things as we do, and they do the contrary. Big problem.
And so, so from the start this text we could not accept. [once again I refer you to* below] And that's what I told Rome: we can't accept. I told it even two times. The first time, I tried to remain broad because my aim was to demolish the frame which they were trying to impose to us. This frame is called the Hermeneutic of the Continuity. That means that we have to interpret, or to understand, they pretend that the Council is in the line of Tradition, and that's the only way, we have to the Council in the light, not only the light, but to say that the Council is traditional. And we say no, that's not true, we say, that we should that we should understand that we should understand anything that comes from Rome in the light of Tradition, it's the only Catholic way, but precisely this Council, with this Council, we can't do that because the texts are opposed to Tradition, they're contrary; [At last! He says it. Let’s keep that in mind and on record. So that begs the question: why did you say last May: “I would hope so,“ when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition. “The pope says that... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,“ the bishop said.
And why did he send this statement to the Vatican?:
“We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals. The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.
The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever. That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.”]
...what they say in the Council has been condemned before. Especially Religious Liberty, but also Ecuмenism for example, very clearly the contrary. [again, why did you say: “Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited.”?]
And so, we say: no it doesn't work. Doesn't work. But, I didn't want to go into the details, I just wanted to, so to say, to *ppprrr* to explode the frame. Because they said if I go into the details, they will change the details but they will try to remain, to remind, to keep the frame. So I say no, it doesn't work. They were not happy with it, and they called me and they asked me if I could not be more precise. [ (http://i6.ifrm.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif) When even the liberal Conciliarists, who have mastered ambiguous NewSpeak for the past 50 years, have to ask someone to be more precise… Wow. If only +F would be obedient to Rome on this point, and be precise in his speech from now on!] [0:25:09] I said OK, I will do it that, I will do that. So I sent a second answer. It was not that I would correct the first, no. It was exactly the same answer, but more precise, according to their text.
So, I sent to Rome a double no. Things seemed clear, no? But the big, big problem facing at that time was the following. Even before the 14th September, I got messages from people working in Rome, and which are friendly with us. People who have even been burned, their fingers have been burnt because they were too close to us. And they work in Rome and they are our friends. And these people told me: "The Pope is going to recognise the Society. And he's going to do that the same way he did with the excommunications. That is, without anything from your side." Pope does it: done. And I got several of these messages from several different persons, who, let's say, authenticity I cannot put in doubt. For example, one of those was a person working in Ecclesia Dei, those who are dealing with us. And this very person, after we got the text, told us: "That's not what the Pope wants!"
So you see, I got all these kind of messages which were not fitting together. [So why all the propaganda this spring, to prepare everyone for the deal?] I got an official thing, where I clearly have to say no. And I got other messages, which are not official of course, but which say "No, that's not what the Pope wants! The Pope is much more inclined towards us, you!" And the people tell me these things; they're not just someone in the Vatican. They're VERY close to the Pope. Very close. I mean, people who see him every day, or every two days, and there are very few people who see him every day. And these people, they know the Pope, they know what he thinks, and they give me this message. So what am I going to do now? I have an official message where I have to say no. I have people who tell me: "But that's not what the Pope wants!"
You see, that was a major problem. So this is confusing. [And yet you want to accept a deal with these people?] But the second problem I was in, it was impossible for me to say these things in the public. Because if I would say that, I would make things even worse. And, and Rome would say: "That's not true!" And even now, I expect Rome to say that, because I tell these things now. And if you think: "What is Bishop Fellay telling us?" I would remind you something which happened to me just a few years ago. It was with Cardinal Castrillón. Cardinal Castrillón told me the following: "What I am going to tell you now, if you repeat it, I will be forced to deny it." [And you want to accept a deal from these people? ]
Understand? I tell you something, if you repeat it, I will say no, that's not true. And he finished by saying: "The Pope and myself, we are in your favour."
But, if he tells us that he's going to say the contrary, what can I do with it? Nothing! [Exactly.]
And just to remind you, that's exactly what happened with Archbishop Lefebvre during his audience with Paul VI. Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre: "You oblige your seminarians to make an oath against me!" And when Archbishop Lefebvre said [0:30:00] that in the public, Rome made a statement saying: "That's not true. The Pope never said that to Archbishop Lefebvre!" You see how complicated it is? So it's messy, and you can't even say it. And if you try to say it, you make it even more messy. [And yet you were willing to put the future and legacy of Apb. Lefebvre's Society into this mess?]
...to be continued, if I have time....
*Based on an article published by Radio Cristiandad
11th November, 2011
http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011...¿era-necesario/ (http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/¿era-necesario/)
When one becomes aware of the true content of the Doctrinal Preamble that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger received from representatives of Neo-Modernist Rome on 14th September, one wonders:
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to understand two thousand years of Catholic Tradition in the new light of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar teaching of Liberal popes?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept as doctrinal reference the Schonborn/Ratzinger catechism; a Compendium of Second Vatican Council doctrine?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept the new Code of Canon Law having greater value than the old Code?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to the demand to accept the Novus Ordo as legitimate?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to a demand to take a Conciliarist Profession of Faith that replaces the Oath Against Modernism?
Is it necessary to have to reflect for two months or more upon whether to reject or submit to a demand to take an Oath of Allegiance to Neo-Modernist authorities that occupy and insult Eternal Rome?
If the answer is obvious and and overwhelming 'NO !', then one wonders:
Why did Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger not immediately reject the Preamble on 14th September?
Why hide and then continue to attempt to hide the content of the Preamble?
Why do they want to delay dealing with such a simple matter?
While awaiting the answer to reveal itself in the full light of day Catholics should remember that sources in Neo-Modernist Rome informed Femille Chrètienne that the Vatican judges that the Doctrinal Preamble performs its objective by creating and fueling a Kantian/Hegelian dialectic within SSPX.
Some suggested responses +F could have given Cardinal Levada:
Archbishop Lefebvre[/s]]We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger Pope Benedict sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. ... “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.
Archbishop Lefebvre[/s]]...it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.
Good job CWA.
I too spent some time today on trying to discern this "recycled jargon"; coincidentally, my time today ended on one paragraph later. With a smile, my notes I had written are of the very same conclusions as yours -paragraph to paragraph- you didn't miss a beat. Well thought out CWA. I will be looking forward to the rest of your rebuttals...if you have time.
-
("The cement already dried" box canceled my other addition before I was able to add something else).
Simply, this conference shows a lot of "winning" from him with a lot of “recycled jargon”. He didn’t at all address the real issue of the SSPX crisis –for which Bishop Williamson was really expelled for. Instead of standing up like St. Paul, an example to all Catholic Bishops, Bishop Fellay only kept trying to use the “cookie jar” excuse: Not me. It was someone else…
:facepalm:
-
...
Hey look, CI was even referenced here:
jhayes says:
1 January 2013 at 9:15 pm
I haven’t compared this against the audio so, if you quote from this transcript, I would first go to the time point in the tape and satisfy yourself that the transcription is accurate.
That's right: we've got nothing to do at CI but try to falsify the recording.
(Huh?) Never mind that +F's accent and ESL grammar are next to
unintelligible at times.
Hey, how about if you find an error come on in and let everyone know
what it is? Too much to ask?
Let me put it this way: By the time you get around to "comparing this
against the audio," it's going to be the dozenth time or more, all told.
So you just come on in and let everyone else know where we've made
an obvious mistake, okay?
Much obliged! :cowboy:
In a few places I gave it a shot guessing what was said, but I tried to
put a note to that effect in brackets. Sometimes I forgot the brackets.
Okay, so I'm not perfect. But let's be reasonable and try to refrain from
accusing others of intentional deceit. We are looking for the truth here,
and if you think you have it you are welcome to come and post your own
findings.
-
...
Hey look, CI was even referenced here:
jhayes says:
1 January 2013 at 9:15 pm
I haven’t compared this against the audio so, if you quote from this transcript, I would first go to the time point in the tape and satisfy yourself that the transcription is accurate.
That's right: we've got nothing to do at CI but try to falsify the recording.
(Huh?) Never mind that +F's accent and ESL grammar are next to
unintelligible at times.
Hey, how about if you find an error come on in and let everyone know
what it is? Too much to ask?
Let me put it this way: By the time you get around to "comparing this
against the audio," it's going to be the dozenth time or more, all told.
So you just come on in and let everyone else know where we've made
an obvious mistake, okay?
Much obliged! :cowboy:
In a few places I gave it a shot guessing what was said, but I tried to
put a note to that effect in brackets. Sometimes I forgot the brackets.
Okay, so I'm not perfect. But let's be reasonable and try to refrain from
accusing others of intentional deceit. We are looking for the truth here,
and if you think you have it you are welcome to come and post your own
findings.
In case it isn't evident, my offer was directed at jhayes who posted
that on the other website, not at CWA who was only reporting the post
made on the other website. But jhayes may never read this, who knows?
I'm just saying we ought to be aware that there could be trolls lurking
around who are trying to use posts here as a means of discrediting CI
and its members by way of insinuating that we have deliberately
misrepresented the audio recording, and that we are trying to "put words
into +Fellay's mouth."
We don't have to put words into his mouth. His own words incriminate
him quite adequately all on their own merit.
It still amazes me that he is somehow able to keep this blindfold of so-
called "humility" over the eyes of so many of his followers who really ought
to know better.
It's just amazing how he perpetuates his FALSE IMAGE of "good guy."
They are so blinded and prejudiced in +Fellay's favor, that when you try
to inform them by pointing out inconsistencies and self-contradictions,
they say: "You must be anti-Fellay."
AntiFellayism would be honored, I'm sure!
The parallels with our American problem-person, Obama, is conspicuous.
Try to talk to an American Liberal about how destructive the policies and
actions and words of Obama are to everything American, and all you get
is, "You must be anti-Obama." I think that's almost Apocalyptic.
The Beast is among us. And it's not one person, but it has multiple heads.
Read Apoc. cap. xiii.
-
..Hey look, CI was even referenced here:
jhayes says:
I haven’t compared this against the audio so, if you quote from this transcript, I would first go to the time point in the tape and satisfy yourself that the transcription is accurate.
That's right: we've got nothing to do at CI but try to falsify the recording. (Huh?) Never mind that +F's accent and ESL grammar are next to unintelligible at times. Hey, how about if you find an error come on in and let everyone know what it is? Too much to ask?
Let me put it this way: By the time you get around to "comparing this
against the audio," it's going to be the dozenth time or more, all told.
So you just come on in and let everyone else know where we've made
an obvious mistake, okay?
In case it isn't evident, my offer was directed at jhayes who posted
that on the other website, not at CWA who was only reporting the post
made on the other website.
I thought so, but glad you clarified. Thanks.
We don't have to put words into his mouth. His own words incriminate him quite adequately all on their own merit.
It still amazes me that he is somehow able to keep this blindfold of so-
called "humility" over the eyes of so many of his followers who really ought
to know better.
It's just amazing how he perpetuates his FALSE IMAGE of "good guy."
They are so blinded and prejudiced in +Fellay's favor, that when you try
to inform them by pointing out inconsistencies and self-contradictions,
they say: "You must be anti-Fellay."
Yes.
-
Here's a bit of commentary on at least part of it:
Good job CWA.
I too spent some time today on trying to discern this "recycled jargon"; coincidentally, my time today ended on one paragraph later. With a smile, my notes I had written are of the very same conclusions as yours -paragraph to paragraph- you didn't miss a beat. Well thought out CWA. I will be looking forward to the rest of your rebuttals...if you have time.
Thanks! I would still be glad to see yours.
I only did a slight bit more on that long conference. In doing so, I had to refer back to the June DICI interview, and got to thinking, I don't remember anybody ever doing much of a critique of that. So I did that instead.
I will post the few paragraphs on the recent conference first:
Bishop Fellay attempts to explain himself to the Canadian Faithful
December 2012, continued:
So that was, let's say a part of the problem. Add to this, as people did not know what was happening they tried to invent. And with the internet: Wow! You have these things that go everywhere, and the most wrong, right, false, true, everything mixed, impossible to make it, to correct it. And that was circulating in every places. People who say "Bishop Fellay told us this"; "Bishop Fellay said that and that" which were not true! [Please specify what these untrue items were. Most of the examples I’m aware of were true, so what precisely were these lies? And, since he implies there were so many, more examples, and clearer, than this one here:] Once again, I give you an example, that you may - how do you say? - touch a little bit of these things. It was said on the internet, Bishop Fellay told a priest of the Society in Austria that in the agreement with Rome, every chapel which has less than three years of existence must be demolished. That's what they claim, that you find in the internet. Now the reality, what I really said to these priest, I said to them this. I tried to explain, in our discussion with Rome, Rome told us: "We will recognise all the places. Everything, every place where you say the Mass, we will recognise as a Catholic chapel." And I told them: "Fine! That's great! But I think we have one or two problems. For example, we have places, we rent a motel room to say the Mass once every two weeks. You're not going to recognise and to declare now this room of the motel a Catholic chapel! So what are you going to do with this?" And so they reflect and say: "OK, we could use the Lunga data" - it's a technical term. It means we will say every place where the Mass has been celebrated since three years. This place has a right to have a solid chapel. So even if for the time being it's not, you have the right to establish a chapel there. So that's what I told the priests. And you see what came out in the internet is exactly the contrary. It's crazy! Madness! So that's an example of this, let's say, problem I was facing.
[I will let others who know more comment more on this, but a few things come to mind. As we don’t have an audio recording of what he said to the priests in Austria, it is basically one man’s word against another. (In this case, more than one, as I assume there were several priests who could vouch for what he said at this talk.) Second, even if +F thinks he made the above clear to the priest(s) in Austria, it is not unthinkable that they misunderstood him (imagine that! – with all his ambiguity). Third, is this the only example he could think of, when he makes it sound like there were falsehoods galore? Lastly, “It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? … And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem. Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.”]
I wrote the above paragraph before seeing this comment (http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11582&view=findpost&p=22048627) from Dawn Marie, who initially revealed what the priests in Austria heard:
Also the Austrian thread was neither false nor a rumor. Come on...that was the answer the Austrian priest said Bishop Fellay gave him. Like it or not.
Bp. Fellay remembers it differently, to be fair I said I should have asked Bp. Fellay about it before posting it. It would have been fair to do so. Still I deferred to Bp. Fellay's take on it later even though those who heard him that day say it was a different story.
Now, to show that it was really serious, the messages that I got, they were very serious, very precise. And well, I did not give you names, but I give you one position: it is the Secretary of the Pope himself. Closer to the Pope you cannot have. Who gave us these kind of messages. Example: "Bishop Fellay must not fear. Once the agreement is done, he will be able to continue to attack everything as he does now." Attack all the errors, inside, outside, doesn't matter. [But you just said that even Cardinal Castrillón told you: "What I am going to tell you now, if you repeat it, I will be forced to deny it." So, these unnamed men in the Vatican are telling you this, and this is the only guarantee you have that this “regularization” will be safe, even after you just told us how the Cardinals go against what the Pope says to do, not to mention that this Pope could die 5 minutes after the ink is dry on the “regularization”, and we’re supposed to agree that you were right to come so close to a deal?]
[0:33:53]
Another one: "If the Congregation of the Faith is ruling against the Society, the Pope is above the Congregation of the Faith and he will overrule it in favour of the Society." Or other things like, the Pope made, gave me a message: "You must know that to solve the problem of the Society is at the heart of the preoccupation of my Pontificate." So something very, very important for the Pope, to solve the problem. To solve the problem means to recognise the Society as Catholic. And I know that the Pope knows that we oppose the Council.
So how do we reconcile all these pieces? [How about this: “ it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.”] Well, the situation came to a peak a little bit later in March. In March I will receive the answer from the Congregation of the Faith to my double no. I said no to them. And so I am called again to Rome by Cardinal Levada, and the 16th March he gives me a letter, and he says this letter has been approved by the Pope. Now I tell you, this letter, if I would have only this letter, would mean the end of our relation with Rome. Because this letter says: "You do not have the right to oppose what the Church has taught yesterday with what she's teaching today. You cannot say there are errors in the Council." And more: "If you refuse the proposal of the 14th September, which has been explicitly approved by the Pope, this means that in the facts you reject the authority of the Pope." And hence there is a reference to the Canon Law which, they say, the words you don't find in the letter, but the reference yes, and this reference says you are schismatic and you are excommunicated. And the letter concluded by saying that the Pope, in his goodness, he wants to leave you one more month to think about it; [0:37:00] and if during this month you change your position, please let us know. That's the letter. Clear letter. Also to say thankful to the Good Lord, because now I had something clear in my hands. This clarity did not last long. The day before or the same day I got that message from Rome: "Well, you're going to receive a very hard letter, but be cool. No panic." And two days after, the message was: "The only thing you have to do with this letter is to put it into the archives." In other words, don't give to it any credit, any attention. Imagine. When I got that message, I said: "That's crazy!" And someone did report that to Rome, and the person who got that message in Rome with a little smile said: "Yes, that's crazy!" [And you are still dealing with these people?]
It's so solemn from Rome, you know, with this authority who says: "I speak in the name of the Holy Father. If you disobey, it's finished, done, shdum." And same time, oh, don't give any attention to that letter. It's unbelievable. How you agree to tell these things outside!? [Why are you able to tell us now? Why not tell us then? Just tell the world, and say, “you can see how I can’t deal with people like this!”] I say it now, but at the moment when it happened I could not. It's clear that it was impossible. [It is not clear to me. Please explain why.]
That's as far as I got; not sure if I'll have time for more.
-
Even though this is not directly about the thread topic, the recent +F conference, but instead is about his DICI interview last June, I am going to post it here anyway. As I was going through his OLMC 12-28-12 conference, several times I referred back to this DICI interview, and there was so much in there - so much that makes me go :facepalm:. So I thought I'd post my commentary here. You have to try to keep in mind what he claims in his recent conferences when reading this older interview, and vice versa.
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on relations with Rome
8-June-2012
DICI: Are you concerned about the delay in the response from Rome, which could enable those who are against a canonical recognition to alienate some priests and faithful from the Society of Saint Pius X?
[Even the way this question is worded implies a lot. Think about it.]
Bishop Fellay: Everything is in God’s hands. I place my trust in the Good Lord and in His Divine Providence; He knows how to manage everything, even delays, for the good of those who love Him.
[Isn’t that beautiful? (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/violin.gif) I say this, not to be mocking, but just that it sets up right from the beginning the idea that he is SO trying to do God’s will. It’s all very psychological.]
DICI: Was the pope’s decision adjourned, as some magazines have said? Did the Holy See tell you to expect a delay?
Bishop Fellay: No, I have had no information about any calendar whatsoever. There are even some who say that the pope will deal with this matter at Castel Gandolfo in July.
A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome. Has your position on this point changed?
Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II. [As if that has never been done before? What about the Archbishop’s “Dubia”, and all his voluminous correspondence with Conciliar Rome in the 1980s? ]
What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution. [Really? Obviously that did not turn out to be the case. Even if he believed that was the case at the time, why did he trust the Rome that he repeatedly says in his long recycled conferences he’s been giving for the last 12 years, that Rome is constantly contradicting itself? So why would you believe the part of NewRome that says this? Besides, and this is a HUGE point: Other groups did NOT have to accept Vatican II either!!!
for example: Regarding the priests within the newly erected Institute, he reportedly said that Rome required no concessions from the priests, presumably regarding the Second Vatican Council, and in fact, insisted that they work together in harmony with the Church to re-clarify its doctrines in the current climate of confusion. "No compromise was required!" said Abbot Laguérie, in the September 11 edition. (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/060918)
To pretend that “what has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution” is disingenuous, to put it charitably. ]
Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church [what the heck does that mean?] , since the Church is more than the Council. [no kidding] Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. [wow; thank goodness I read this interview. The things you learn….] Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. [“More far-reaching problems” than what? “More far-reaching problems” than Vatican II & its aftermath? ]
This new awareness… [gag; talk about Conciliar language! “New awareness” of what? That the Church is more than the Council? Who just came to be aware of that? You? Where did you get this “new awareness”? From the discussions? What the heck does any of this mean?]
…can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve. [Have you not been bringing the treasures of Tradition to anyone who wants them? Is that what the new awareness is? You didn’t realize you were called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve? Wow.]
So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. [All the abundant evidence proves otherwise.]
We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. [The Pope who you admit later in the interview you never talk to? The Pope who appoints all these liberal Cardinals to key positions? The Pope whose work is sabotaged by his Cardinals? The Pope who you admit “You read the audience in 2005, the point which impressed me the most was how inconceivable it was for the Pope to have a Catholic who would reject the Council.”? The Pope who just held Assisi III, beatified JPII and Paul VI, the Pope who is calling for a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr? ???]
You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. [No kidding. Are you trying to say the Pope just figured this out in the last few years?]
These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. [What the heck are you talking about? (Restraining myself from using stronger language here...) What “secondary problems”? What “major problems”? How can anyone read this gobbledygook and think highly of this man?]
This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand. [The only possible response to this: (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/rollingeyes.gif)]
The official authorities do not want to acknowledge the errors of the Council. They will never say so explicitly. [Well, that doesn’t do us much good, does it?] Nevertheless, if you read between the lines, you can see that they hope to remedy some of these errors. [How nice. How can they remedy errors when they’re not even at the point of admitting the source of the errors?]
Here is an interesting example on the subject of the priesthood. You know that starting with the Council there was a new concept of the priesthood and that it demolished the role of the priest. Today we see very clearly that the Roman authorities are trying to rehabilitate the true concept of the priest. We observed this already during the Year of the Priest that took place in 2010-2011. Now, the Feast of the Sacred Heart is becoming the day consecrated to the sanctification of priests. For this occasion, a letter was published and an examination of conscience for priests was composed. One might think that they went to Ecône to find this examination of conscience, it is so much along the lines of pre-conciliar spirituality. This examination presents the traditional image of the priest, and also of his role in the Church. This role is what Archbishop Lefebvre affirms when he describes the Society’s mission: to restore the Church by restoring the priest.
The letter says: “The Church and the world can be sanctified only through the sanctification of the priest.” It really places the priest at the center. The examination of conscience begins with this question: “Is the first concern of the priest his own sanctification?” The second question: “Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”—and that is the expression that they use, not the Eucharist, the Synaxis, or I don’t know what else—“the center of the life of the priest?” Then it recalls the ends of the Mass: the praise of God, prayer, reparation for sins…. It says it all. The priest must immolate himself—the word “immolate” is not used, but rather “give himself”, sacrifice himself to save souls. It does say that. Then comes a reminder about the last things: “Does the priest think often about the last things? Does he think to ask for the grace of final perseverance? Does he remind his faithful to do so? Does he visit the dying so as to give them the last rites?” You see how, in a clever way, [very clever! (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/rollingeyes.gif)] this Roman docuмent clearly recalls the traditional idea of the priest. [Here I can do no better than to quote Fr. Girouard:
Fr. Girouard sermon July 1, 2012
Oh, there was a very nice letter of the pope on the priesthood - very traditional letter of the pope on the priesthood; and June 10 the Pope sent a message to the Eucharistic Congress of Ireland. I read it, (so you cannot say I am not open to them). I read the docuмent. Very nice, very nice letter about the (Holy Eucharist?). So, what does that mean? That means they have good writers that can write a nice letter that sounds Catholic. But my dear friends, they have done the same since the time of Paul VI! Try to remember: they always came up, about once a year, with either a traditional docuмent about the priesthood, about the necessity of confession, always came up, and then we thought, "Oh they are changing; they are going back to tradition!" - it’s the same old kind of trying to make us – bait –it’s a bait – we are like fishes that they try to hook on the bait. And so therefore we would say those docuмents they have absolutely no value in as long as they continue in their actions to promote error and the new mass. The new mass is an abomination. So they can write to me a new letter about the priesthood and the holy Eucharist and the sacrifice of the mass - Every day they can send me a letter. As long as they keep that bastard mass, as +AL called it – a bastard mass - a protestant mass, the mass of Luther he called it – in as long as they keep this then their words mean nothing. If I’m telling you that I love you, and every time I see you I slap you on the face, I don’t know if you will believe me for long.
[very "clever" indeed...]
Fellay Continues: Of course, that does not do away with all the problems, and there are still serious difficulties in the Church: ecuмenism, Assisi, religious liberty…, [well thank goodness he at least still acknowledges that much!] but the context is changing, and not just the context, but the situation itself….
[no; it isn’t, except to get exponentially worse] I would distinguish between the external relations and the internal situation. The relations with the outside have not have changed, but as for what goes on within the Church, the Roman authorities are trying to change it little by little.
[no; they aren’t. For every one example you can give, like this nice Trad-sounding docuмent on the priesthood, we can give you hundreds of examples of the continuing rot.] Obviously, a major disaster still remains today, one must be aware of that, and we do not deny it, but one must also look at what is starting to happen. This examination of conscience for priests is a significant example. (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/rollingeyes.gif)
What should be our attitude toward the doctrinal problems?
DICI: You acknowledge that some serious difficulties remain with ecuмenism, religious liberty…. If a canonical recognition came about, what would be your attitude with regard to these difficulties? Would you not feel obliged to be somewhat reserved?
Bishop Fellay: Allow me to answer your question with three inquiries: Did the novelties that were introduced during the Council start a trend of growth in the Church and an increase of vocations and religious practice? Do we not observe, to the contrary, a form of “silent apostasy” in all the countries of Christendom? Can we be silent when faced with these problems?
[Well, apparently Fr. Iscara (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/st_basils_economy_of_silence_in_the_face_of_heresy.htm) thinks so. Question: Why was this article, St. Basil's "economy
of silence" (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=18690) put out last spring, and why is it still on SSPX websites, when you are saying we can’t be silent when faced with these problems? Why did you tell SSPX priests, such as those in India, not to preach against Assisi III? Why did you muzzle (http://www.sspx.org/news/is_sspx_being_muzzled.htm) SSPX priests just because you are in discussions with Rome? Can you be silent when faced with these problems? I could go on and on here………. Incidentally, notice again he poses it as a question; why doesn't he just say, "We can't be silent when faced with these problems." ?]
If we want to make the treasure of Tradition fruitful for the good of souls, we must speak and act. We need this twofold freedom of speech and action. But I would mistrust a purely verbal denunciation of doctrinal errors—a denunciation that would be all the more polemical because it was only verbal.
[???]
With his characteristic realism, [oh brother] Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the Roman and diocesan authorities would be more responsive to numbers and facts presented by the Society of Saint Pius X than to theological arguments. [what does that mean?] And so I would not hesitate to say that, if a canonical recognition were to come about, the doctrinal difficulties would still be emphasized by us, but together with a lesson taught by the facts themselves, tangible signs of the vitality of Tradition. And for that to happen, as I already told you in 2006, concerning the stages in our dialogue with Rome, we must have “faith in the Traditional Mass, the Mass that demands in and of itself integrity of doctrine and of the sacraments, the assurance of all spiritual fruitfulness in the service of souls”. [he lost me]
DICI: The year 2012 is not 1988, the year of your episcopal consecration. In 2009 the excommunications were lifted, in 2007 it was officially acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass had “never been abrogated”, but now some members of the Society lament the fact that the Church has not yet converted. Is their a priori refusal of a canonical recognition due to forty years of an exceptional situation, resulting in a certain inability to understand submission to authority?
Bishop Fellay: What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error.
[Who is claiming this? I am not aware of anyone who does. This is a deliberate mischaracterization.] This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work.
[Like your founder? Archbishop Lefebvre: “If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”] But that is not the reality. It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church.
[Never before in the history of the Church has there been such an apostasy, starting at the top!] Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors.
[Have you left the Church? For decades the SSPX has been teaching that they did not leave the Church.] Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat.
[Unbelievable. For the SG of the SSPX to talk like this! Why in the world is the SSPX in an “irregular” situation in the first place? It’s so hard to even comment on so much of this, because....where do I begin? It’s like we need to go over the whole history of the last 40+ years to explain it to him. :facepalm:]
At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now.
[He apparently has forgotten or never understood the Archbishop’s distinctions between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church.] Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic.
[oh good; at least he says that - it's like he caught himself and realized it might have sounded bad] But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough? [ :facepalm:]
In this situation, which some currently depict as an impossible situation, we are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did. Certainly that does not do away with the danger. But if we have sufficient freedom to act, to live and to grow, this must be done. I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection.
[are the other Ecclesia Dei groups doing this? (no) What would constitute “sufficient protection”? No such thing. Like a sheep saying, “we’ll place ourselves under the wolves, on the condition that we have sufficient protection. Especially when you claim that the Pope has no control over all these bad liberal Cardinals he appointed.]
...to be continued...
-
DICI: Do you think that there are members of the Society who, consciously or not, espouse sedevacantist ideas? Are you afraid of their influence?
[here we go, with the sede accusation]
Bishop Fellay: Some may indeed be influenced by such ideas; that is nothing new. I do not think that there are that many of them, but they can do harm, especially by spreading false rumors. [such as?] But I really think that the main concern among us is rather the question of trust in the Roman authorities, with the fear that what might happen would be a trap. Personally, I am convinced that that is not the case. In our Society we distrust Rome because we have experienced too many disappointments; that is why some think that this could be a trap. It is true that our enemies may plan to use this offer as a trap, but the pope, who really wants this canonical recognition, is not proposing it to us as a trap.
[again, there are no words… :facepalm:]
Finding out what the Roman proposal will allow de jure and de facto
DICI: Several times you have said that the pope personally wants the canonical recognition of the Society. Do you have a recent personal assurance from the pope himself that this is truly his intention?
Bishop Fellay: Yes, the pope is the one who wants it, and I have said it repeatedly. I have enough precise information in my possession to declare that what I say is true, although I have not had any direct dealings with the pope—rather, with his close collaborators.
DICI: The April 14 letter signed by the three other bishops of the Society was unfortunately circulated on the Internet; does the analysis that it presents correspond to the situation in the Church?
Bishop Fellay: I do not rule out the possibility of a development in their position. The first question for us who were consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was the question of the survival of Tradition. I think that if my confreres see and understand that de jure and de facto the Roman proposal contains a genuine opportunity for the Society to “restore all things in Christ”, despite all the troubles that continue to exist in the Church today, then they will be able to readjust their judgment—that is to say, with the canonical status in hand and the facts on the table. Yes, I think so, I hope so. And we must pray for that intention.
[not a true answer to the question, which, being DICI, is presumably a canned question. Instead, this answer basically seems to say “hopefully the other bishops will warm up to the idea of a deal”, even though he keeps insisting at other times that he is not looking for a deal, etc…]
DICI: Some people throughout the world, including members of the Society, have made use of passages from an interview that you granted to Catholic News Service; these passages seem to indicate that in your view Dignitatis humanae no longer poses a difficulty.
Did the way in which this interview was edited change the meaning of what you wanted to say? What is your position on this subject in relation to what Archbishop Lefebvre taught?
Bishop Fellay: My position is that of the Society and of Archbishop Lefebvre.
[very easy to say; but your words in the CNS interview demonstrate otherwise. If your position is the same, why not repeat some of his clear, straightforward words, memorize them and repeat them in an interview such as this, since you seem to have such trouble being understood, taken out of context, etc… ]
As usual, in such a delicate matter, we must make distinctions, and a good part of these distinctions disappeared in the televised interview that had been reduced to less than six minutes. But the written report that CNS made of my remarks recovers what I said that was not included in the broadcast version: “Although [Bishop Fellay] stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation [of religious liberty] as essentially in continuity with the Church’s Tradition—a position which many in the Society have vocally disputed—Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.” In fact, I simply recalled that there is already a traditional solution to the problem posed by religious liberty, which is called tolerance. As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case” (which a faulty French translation transformed into: “I hope so.”)
[what’s the difference between “I would like to hope that that is the case” and “I hope so.”? (Actually, the printed CNS interview said “I would hope so.” Still can’t see a substantial difference.) And how is it that CNS did a “faulty French translation,” when the interview was done in English? :confused1:] This is quite along the lines of the distinctions made by Archbishop Lefebvre to read the Council in the light of Tradition: what agrees with Tradition, we accept; what is doubtful, we understand as Tradition has always taught it; what is opposed, we reject.
[this last line has nothing to do with the question of Religious Liberty; it is a diversion]
Relations of the Society of Saint Pius X with diocesan bishops
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory. Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Bishop Fellay: There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature. Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same. In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
[Two paragraphs, and he hasn’t yet started to answer the question. Good politician.]
It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?
[insert shrugged shoulders; hey, since when is life without difficulties? (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/hippy.gif) ] Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.
[yeah, right. He spends half of his 3-hour long repeatedly recycled conferences for the last 12 years talking about how the liberal bishops & Cardinals (appointed by the Pope) are against the SSPX, but here tries to reassure us with the idea that, far from the bishops trying to block their work, we will have the opposite problem. Does he think we were born yesterday?]
In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora. And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
[Again, after all your examples such as: “This man now is a cardinal, the one who sabotaged the Pope. …And even for decisions of the Pope inside the Vatican, they go through the Secretary of State. And so, you have people in the Secretary of State who block the decisions of the Pope and don’t transmit that.”, you just casually mention that if there are difficulties, it would go to Rome?]
Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.
[you just admitted that at least one third of what was reported was true.]
DICI: If there is a canonical recognition, what would happen to the chapels affiliated with the Society and independent of the diocese? Would the bishops of the Society continue to administer Confirmation and provide the Holy Oils?
Bishop Fellay: If they work with us, there will be no problem: it will be exactly as it is now. If not, everything will depend on what these chapels mean by independence.
[No mention of Conditional Confirmation and Ordinations. Does anyone in their right mind think they would be allowed to continue these? And if they are not allowed to continue, does +F consider that a problem? If not, why have they done them thus far? If so, tell us how that will be resolved.]
DICI: Will there be a difference in your relations with the Ecclesia Dei communities?
Bishop Fellay: The first difference will be that they will be obliged to stop treating us as schismatics. As for future development, it is clear that some will draw closer to us, since they already approve of us discreetly; some others, no. Time will tell how Tradition will develop in this new situation. We have great expectations for the traditional apostolate, just as some important personages in Rome do, and the Holy Father himself. We have great hopes that Tradition will develop with our arrival.
DICI: Again, if there is a canonical recognition, will you give some cardinals in the Curia or some bishops the opportunity to visit our chapels, to celebrate Mass, to administer Confirmation, perhaps even to ordain priests at your seminaries?
Bishop Fellay: The bishops who are in favor of Tradition and the conservative cardinals will come closer. [meaning? The question was on celebrating Mass, administering Confirmations and Ordinations..(http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/waiting.gif) ] One can foresee a whole development, without knowing the particular details. [nice dodge] And certainly there will be difficulties, too, which is altogether normal. [No biggie; again the casual shrug of the shoulders here. Too bad I don’t have a shoulder-shrugging emoticon.] There is no doubt that people will come to visit us, but as for a more precise collaboration, such as the celebration of Mass or ordinations, that will depend on the circuмstances. [When it is suggested that closer collaboration with the NO as a regularized entity might result in NO bishops coming to SSPX chapels and seminaries to say Mass, confirm, or ordain priests, he does not rule out the possibility.] Just as we hope that Tradition will develop, we hope to see Tradition develop among the bishops and the cardinals. One day everything will be harmoniously traditional, but how much time that will take, only God knows.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/
(Keep in mind when reading this, this is a canned interview by DICI; he can write out his answers with thought & care before publishing. It came out at a time when all this brouhaha was raging, and presumably he would be trying to calm that down. And keep this interview in mind when reading or listening to his recent conferences.)
Lastly, I will add some comments by another poster here several months ago:
What Bishop Fellay said in the CNS interview:
1) Those things we thought came from VII, we see from the negotiations, that they do not come from VII but from a false hermeneutic.
2) After all, the religious liberty of VII is a very narrow religious liberty!
3) To the question, is VII part of the church's tradition: I hope so!
From the DICI interview:
1) To the prospect of difficulties (i.e. restrictions on the Society's apostolate) arising from putting the society under the control of the NO bishops: the flippant answer, "Since when is life without difficulties?" As though the inability to minister to lost souls is after all a small matter!
2) When it is suggested that closer collaboration with the NO as a regularized entity might result in NO bishops coming to SSPX chapels and seminaries to say Mass, confirm, or ordain priests, he does not rule out the possibility.
At ordinations in Econe:
1) Bishop Fellay was unable to make critical distinctions, a) between actually being Catholic and being recognized as Catholic by the conciliar Roman authorities, b) between eternal Rome and conciliar Rome.
2) Evinced an emotional longing for recognition that is divorced from the reality that those whose recognition he longs for are objectively (not subjectively) heretics.
3)Cruelly refused ordinations at the last minute to properly prepared men with unquestioned vocations to the priesthood on the basis of a disagreement with their superiors as to the prudence of making a deal with apostate Rome.
Bishop Fellay's response to the objections of the other three bishops to a deal without doctrinal agreement was to parrot the Novus Ordo canard of the last 40-plus years that principled resistors to the destruction wrought by the conciliar popes are nothing more than schismatics and sedevacantists.
What Bishop Fellay as been publicly willing to do:
1) Put the Society under the authority of the NO bishops, conceding them the power to deny expansion of the society's apostolate, and according to Bp. Tissier, including the right to review "recent foundations."
2) Submit to an agreement that unilaterally excludes the other three bishops who, as Rome clearly stated, would be dealt with "singularly and separately. Thus Bishop Fellay chooses to embrace conciliar Rome at the inexcusable cost of the unity of the Society.
3) In contrast to the example set by the founder of the society, pursue extended negotiations with the declared enemies of the faith and of the Society in utter secrecy, apparently excluding even the other three bishops from the particulars of his efforts to singlehandedly turn the Society over to conciliar Rome.
4) Authorize the publication by Fr. Iscara of the shameful St. Basil's Economy of Silence with Heretics, and an overview of the history of heresies in the church which purports to prove that this crisis is no different than past crises in the church and requires a long slow work of reformation from the inside. This new argument directly contradicts the society's own publication, "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" and subverts Our Blessed Mother's promise of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.
5) Resort to the same specious tactics adopted by the enemies of the faith and of Christ's church, demanding obedience to his person and his authority as above all principles and exigencies, and in contradiction to right reason, characterizing disobedience as equivalent to schism and the error of sedevacantism.
... in the face of what should qualify as scandalous departure from the spirit of and direction set by the Society's founder by the time of his death, how is one to understand your intractable commitment to the new course set by Bishop Fellay?
In retrospect, we can question the willingness of Bishop Fellay to oppose the specific instruction of Archbishop Lefebvre that the four bishops he ordained NOT hold the office of Superior General. Furthermore, Bishop Fellay, on his election to replace Father Schmidberger, pointed out that it would be an extraordinary thing for the Superior General to serve more than one term, and thus it was normal for Fr. Schmidberger to be replaced. Developments seem to have borne out the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre and the wisdom of maintaining a normal rotation of Superiors General.