Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 52 Location: Warszawa, Poland
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: Sermon of Bishop Fellay 2 February at Flavigny
A magnificent sermon of Bishop Fellay, for the taking of the habit of the Seminarians at Flavigny yesterday. The second part of the sermon speaks of the current situation with Rome ) at around 17 minutes into the sermon.
I usually take personal notes of many sermons, and I thought this sermon might be important enough to share with the forum readers. The entire sermon is magnificent, and I hope someone does a complete translation (if the Angelus people are reading this, I need say no more - If someone transcribes the French, I will translate it into English). Note that this is not a translation, nor anything official, but simply my personal notes translated into English for the aid of the faithful who might be disoriented by recent rumors.
Ks. Jan Jenkins +
=============
(Due to time constraints, I omit the first part of the sermon where Mgr. Fellay speaks of the Mystery of the Purification of Our Lady, the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, and the taking of the habit of the seminarians and brothers)
=============
(Personal notes taken in French, translated into English)
Secondly, we think also of the Temple, the Temple of the Church. We would like to briefly explain the situation where we are. There is nothing special planned, nothing new. Certainly, the devil, as is his normal manner of acting, is spreading rumors, mistrust, speaking of a 'secret accord' or that the Society would become an Apostolic Administration, something that is supposedly to be signed around Easter time. This is completely false, nothing but empty air.
What is true, is that there was a meeting with Cardinal Hoyos on the 15th of November, where we had explained again our reserves, and what we wait for from Rome before we do anything. We explained to him that the Catholic life, the normal Catholic life, is not possible in the Church today. Since the Council, this life has been rendered impossible.
We are not against an agreement, but in order to have an agreement, it should firstly be made possible. We wish to remain Catholic, so Rome must make it possible for us to remain Catholic. That is to say : firstly, negatively, to remove the abuses that are prevalent in the Church, to condemn them and take into hand the government of the Church. Secondly, positively, to reintroduce the Catholic life into the Church, in its fullness - to give back the Mass, which will put the Church back on the right track, towards Our Lord.
Now, there is at least in Rome a recognition that there is a crisis in the Church. Rome can no longer deny this. People serious in Rome are distraught by the situation of the Church today, even if in certain speeches they say the contrary. They are very worried.
But we are not in agreement on the causes of this crisis. The hierarchy would like to attribute this crisis to the situation in the world - the world, according to them, is to blame for this crisis.
Mgr. Fellay presented to Cardinal Hoyos a letter of Mgr. Lefebvre written to Cardinal Octavian one year after the Council, where he describes the consequences of the Council, without taking into account any abuses - just the Council itself - on how it would lead the Church into the present crisis. A remarkable letter that still holds true today - prophetic and actual. The problem is the Council - though not every abuse can be attribute to the Council, the Council is certainly the principle of the climate in which these abuses pass unchecked.
Mgr. Fellay then said that before 'solving the problem of the Society', one must begin by solving the problem in the Church. Once the problems in the Church are resolved, the 'problem of the Society' will be solved by itself.
The Cardinal then said : "What you have just said to me does not put you outside the Church - you are thus in the Church." The Cardinal continued : "I would like you to write to the Pope to ask him to remove the excommunication".
And since then, we have done nothing, because evidently we do not ask for something which we have never recognized. We don't ask to remove something which doesn't exist. We have always refused to recognize the validity of these excommunications, and thus we will not ask to take away something which doesn't exist.
Mgr. Fellay then said that even before talking of an annulation of the excommunication, there is another preliminary : the libery for the Mass.
Why the new tactic of Rome, to what end? Certainly the Pope would like to regulate the 'problem of the Society' quickly, but in their own perspective. On our side, we have always insisted : before any practical solution, one must eliminate the principles which 1/ are the causes of this crisis and 2/ would kill the Society if we were to accept them. We cannot therefore accept a practical solution.
The discussions thus remain at this level. We demand the examination of these deadly principles which have entered the Church, to eliminate them, to reject them. This liberalism, modernism, has entered the Church and kills the Christian life, and is manifested by ecumenism, religious liberty, the laicized state, these same principles which are repeated by the Pope even now.
The Pope recently said that by the laicized state, "we have returned to the Gospel". But the Gospel says exactly the opposite : "He must reign" (oportet eum regnare). All authority comes from God, and must answer to God. All must render an account of how they have exercized their authority. Our Lord is the King of all.
Also, the civil life has a great influence on the life of the soul, and the contrary is also true. The society must therefore be impregnated with the law of God. There must be a harmony between the state and the Gospel. But for the Pope, he says the state ought to be laic - a principle which is taken as a first principle, indisputable. Thus an immense stumbling block. In short, the problem is the Council.
Mgr. Flellay then says that we must simply continue the route traced out by Archbishop Lefebvre, our founder, simply this. The promise of indefectibility given to the Church tells us that one day she will survive this crisis. And so we must work, each one in our place, with all our force, to realize the survival of the Church.
Thus, evidently, we must have relations with Rome in order to accomplish this. It is an error to think that we cannot speak to them. We cannot wait for the day where they will wake up and be Catholic. How will they convert if they do not hear the Word of God (ref. to St. Paul). How can they get out the crisis if no one reminds them of the principles ? The ordinary way of God is to use secondary causes to touch souls. We are in the circumstances which the Good Lord has placed us, and we must do our duty, must do the maximum of good to these authorities. Let us pray then that these authorities receive the light. Let us have the heart of an Apostle. Do not put the light that we have received under the bushel, but let us desire to convert souls. If God has given us the grace to see clearly, it would be a sin to keep this light only for ourselves. We must have the desire to convert souls.
But to do this, we must work, with the great desires that Our Lord had, who is our model. Each day the priest offers a sacrifice of infinite value, a universal power. The grace of the Mass touches the entire Church - thus it would be ridiculous for the priest to restrict his heart to small things - he prays for the entire Church at each Mass. So let us keep this spirit, this intention of the church, with prudence, in union with Our Lady, and confident in Divine Providence. +
Thus, evidently, we must have relations with Rome in order to accomplish this. It is an error to think that we cannot speak to them. We cannot wait for the day where they will wake up and be Catholic. How will they convert if they do not hear the Word of God (ref. to St. Paul). How can they get out the crisis if no one reminds them of the principles ? The ordinary way of God is to use secondary causes to touch souls. We are in the circumstances which the Good Lord has placed us, and we must do our duty, must do the maximum of good to these authorities. Let us pray then that these authorities receive the light. Let us have the heart of an Apostle. Do not put the light that we have received under the bushel, but let us desire to convert souls. If God has given us the grace to see clearly, it would be a sin to keep this light only for ourselves. We must have the desire to convert souls.
This is the Catholic attitude especially when compared to those particular priests that criticize the SSPX for taking the fight right to the source.
Imagine an army that won't engage the enemy for fear that they will basically lose to the enemy. What good is that? Those that are against the SSPX dealing with "Newchurch" don't have that spirit of militant Catholicism that is the mark of a solid faith. They have a bunker mentality that does no one any good. In fact, it's one thing to have a bunker mentality but it's another to criticize anyone who's actually doing more than that as a "sell out". I want Rome back for the unfettered Catholic faith. No one but the SSPX is doing anything to bring that about.
We have received a report from Flavigny, France, where a meeting of SSPX-affiliated monasteries was called for February 1. SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay addressed the monks in part on the status of the possible SSPX sell-out. Although Fellay seems to be singing the old tune that "there is nothing special planned, nothing new," he still seems obsessed with the boogeyman of "rumors, mistrust, speaking of a 'secret accord' or that the Society would become an Apostolic Administration, something that is supposedly to be signed around Easter time. This is completely false, nothing but empty air."
Well if that is true, good! But we shall see. It seems that, more and more, Fellay has been incorporating in his talks (for whatever it is worth) statements that could have been taken directly from TRADITIO and public letters of SSPXers in opposition to a sellout. Previous to the latest round of propaganda talks of Fellay & Schmidberger, they had little to say of Archbishop Lefebvre's outspoken position against "dialoguing" with Newchurch and a lot to say about "negotiations" with Newpope. Remember, Fellay himself admits that it was not Benedict-Ratzinger who called the August 29, 2005, Beheading Meeting with Fellay, but that it was Fellay himself who asked for it.
We suspect that if it is true, TRADITIO had a major hand in being the only independent source to expose to the public the duplicitous statements and actions of Fellay & Schmidberger. As a result, SSPXers who are still loyal to their Archbishop-Founder's principles started making noise within the SSPX. Fellay & Schmidberger talk a good game, but what they say just doesn't seem to correspond to reality. For example, while Fellay tells the monks in France that there is "nothing new," the Italian press is boiling with the announcement of a meeting on February 13 called by Benedict-Ratzinger himself to take up the SSPX matter (and possibly other matters as well). Moreover, web sites in France authored by SSPX priests have already published the outlines of a talking agreement.
The fact that significant information is often relayed by French publications in Europe seems sometimes to be a ploy for limiting circulation of information, as North and South Americans in particular tend to be ignorant of foreign languages. It is well known that the SSPX is Franco-Germanic biased. Some years ago traditional Catholics were shocked to find out that the SSPX seminary at Econe was teaching its theology courses not in Latin -- which even Pope John XXIII demanded in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, solemnly promulgated before the cardinals meeting at Vatican II -- but in French and German. English and Spanish-speaking seminarians are out of luck. They have to spend a good deal of extra time learning French or German instead the Latin in which they should be fluent for their studies.
Reports from Anglo-American and Hispanic seminarians over the years has deplored this nationalist bias, which should be entirely absent from any Catholic organization. After all, as Pope John so clearly pointed out, this is one of the great advantage of Latin as the Church's language: it is beyond nationalist biases. As Hutton Gibson predicted some time ago, Schmidberger and Ratzinger would negotiate in their own language, come to a deal, and then mutually brand all non-accepting traditional Catholics as "schismatics."
According to our source, Fellay in his Flavigny talk poopooed the idea of "lifting the excommunications." If true, that is good. Archbishop Lefebvre blew off that silliness back in 1988. With Newvatican, it was always a political ploy, and even Newvatican's own most prominent canonists have gone on record as stating that the "excommunications" are null and void. If Newvatican tries to entice the SSPX fly into the Newchurch web by lifting the "excommunications," we fully expect Fellay and the other SSPX bishops to do the honorable thing and return the document to Newrome marked: Refused!
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Traditio's Report on February 1 SSPX Meeting in France
The Frs. Moderator wrote:
If Newvatican tries to entice the SSPX fly into the Newchurch web by lifting the "excommunications," we fully expect Fellay and the other SSPX bishops to do the honorable thing and return the document to Newrome marked: Refused!
Quote:
The Cardinal then said : "What you have just said to me does not put you outside the Church - you are thus in the Church." The Cardinal continued : "I would like you to write to the Pope to ask him to remove the excommunication".
And since then, we have done nothing, because evidently we do not ask for something which we have never recognized. We don't ask to remove something which doesn't exist. We have always refused to recognize the validity of these excommunications, and thus we will not ask to take away something which doesn't exist.
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Sermon of Bishop Fellay 2 February at Flavigny
Fr. John Jenkins wrote:
Each day the priest offers a sacrifice of infinite value, a universal power. The grace of the Mass touches the entire Church - thus it would be ridiculous for the priest to restrict his heart to small things - he prays for the entire Church at each Mass. So let us keep this spirit, this intention of the church, with prudence, in union with Our Lady, and confident in Divine Providence. +
Thank you, Father. May God bless you and your fellow priests for all you do. _________________ TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Sermon of Bishop Fellay 2 February at Flavigny
This is very interesting. From some of the things said, there doesn't seem much of a chance of reconciliation in the foreseeable future. Renouncing the Council is very unlikely.
Fr. John Jenkins wrote:
The Cardinal continued : "I would like you to write to the Pope to ask him to remove the excommunication".
Apparently someone thinks that there is a state of excommunication still in place. I guess all the denials haven't made it to the top yet.
Quote:
We cannot wait for the day where they will wake up and be Catholic. How will they convert if they do not hear the Word of God (ref. to St. Paul).
This is magnificent hubris. I don't see how Fellay hopes to gain anything with the kind of rhetoric that denies the Catholicism of the Church. I was foolish to be hopeful for what might transpire in the next few weeks.
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 9791 Location: Central Massachusetts
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject:
"Frs. Moderator" of Traditio say:
Quote:
Some years ago traditional Catholics were shocked to find out that the SSPX seminary at Econe was teaching its theology courses not in Latin -- which even Pope John XXIII demanded in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, solemnly promulgated before the cardinals meeting at Vatican II -- but in French and German.
The FSSP seminary in Wirgitzbad[sp/] do the same thing. Nonetheless, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger visited and spoke in his extemporaneous fashion to the priests and seminarians there, he would say something in German and then pause for its translation into first French and then English and possibly another modern European language. After a while of this "stop-and-start," of which he was getting tired and losing his "train of thought," he stopped his speech, said that he would speak in a language that all would understand, and then resumed his speech in Latin in the same extemporaneous manner without stopping until he was finished.
Also the Jesuits continued lecturing in Latin in their seminaries until the mid 1960s--even in the United States where most Jesuit seminarians learned their Latin from Jesuit priests who had never studied in Rome and thus spoke latin with an American pronunciation rather than the proper "Italianate" pronunciation.
I heard of some American Jesuits who visited Poland in the early 1960s but knew little Polish. They could only communicate with the "locals" by speaking in Latin to Polish Jesuits who translated it into Polish and vice-versa.
Also, I heard of an American Jesuit academic dean who at about the same time hired a Dutch Jesuit to teach theology. The American Jesuit did not speak Dutch, and the Dutch Jesuit spoke little English; thus, they conversed about the terms of the job in Latin. The Dutch Jesuit took a crash course in English before starting to teach in America.
Alas, this Latin fluency among the Jesuits did not last long after that time. In the late 1960s I met a Jesuit who had two earned doctorates: one in theology and one in science. He could speak eloquently on theology, science, and the relation between the two, but he knew little Latin.
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 1851 Location: Upstate New York
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:09 am Post subject:
You know, in as much as we're mostly traditionalists here. And as much as I love this forum. There is one thing of which we find a paucity here. And that is the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ is rarely mentioned. We find a lot of documents, validity, canon law, authority, obedience, encyclicals, et al.
What is rarely mentioned is the Great God Almighty who made us. I think that is a weakness. _________________ Conversi ad Dominum!
What is rarely mentioned is the Great God Almighty who made us. I think that is a weakness.
It's not that Our Lord is not mentioned. There have been many devotional threads and sermons posted. It is just that very few people pay attention to them, or comment on them.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Sermon of Bishop Fellay 2 February at Flavigny
LordBridey wrote:
Quote:
We cannot wait for the day where they will wake up and be Catholic. How will they convert if they do not hear the Word of God (ref. to St. Paul).
This is magnificent hubris. I don't see how Fellay hopes to gain anything with the kind of rhetoric that denies the Catholicism of the Church. I was foolish to be hopeful for what might transpire in the next few weeks.
It's not hubris if it's true. And I don't doubt that you may have been foolish to hope for Bishop Fellay to deny the truth.
"Do not antagonize the membership β AQ is a traditionalist venue. We already have an ample supply of non-trads or semi-trads who offer perspective and give gentle, intelligent correction when needed. In general however, the folks who visit here donβt need to be βstraightened outβ, despite the fact that you may feel qualified to do so. If you hold disdain for elements of traditional Catholicism (i.e. the SSPX) you probably wonβt be happy here and may not last very long."
Everybody with ears can listen to the 2nd February sermon of Bishop Fellay and the things Fr. Schmidberger said some days ago in Kansas City (and before in other US cities).
Thanks to the Mp3 audio files.
Thanks to Fr. Jenkins for the clarification.
St. Marcel, pray for us.
St. Pius X., pray for us.
What is rarely mentioned is the Great God Almighty who made us. I think that is a weakness.
It's not that Our Lord is not mentioned. There have been many devotional threads and sermons posted. It is just that very few people pay attention to them, or comment on them.
Also, timwhit has been posting the martyrology every single day for nearly two years now. I post the propers every Sunday. Those threads tend to fall off the board pretty quickly though.
This actually somewhat goes to Franz's point I suppose. I would like to see our posters keep a keener focus on our Lord as well. We'd be all be better for it.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Sermon of Bishop Fellay 2 February at Flavigny
LordBridey wrote:
No, but "Ecclesia Dei" did.
No, Ecclesia Dei allows a semi-traditionalist priest to offer the occasional traditional Latin Mass (cancellation of which is at the whim of the local modernist bishop) - as long as the priest is very careful never to repudiate Vatican 2 and is willing to store Sacred Hosts in the same tabernacle as doubtfully consecrated species. Oh, and ED priests are expected to concelebrate the new-world-order Mass with their bishop whenever requested.
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: More on sharing tabernacles
Yes, the novus ordo certainly can be valid, but the way the new Mass is offered by modernists makes validity doubtful in many cases. In those churches sharing the tabernacle with anglicans/episcopalians/lutherans (in the spirit of Assisi), the situation is even more precarious.
This is the Catholic attitude especially when compared to those particular priests that criticize the SSPX for taking the fight right to the source.
Imagine an army that won't engage the enemy for fear that they will basically lose to the enemy. What good is that? Those that are against the SSPX dealing with "Newchurch" don't have that spirit of militant Catholicism that is the mark of a solid faith. They have a bunker mentality that does no one any good. In fact, it's one thing to have a bunker mentality but it's another to criticize anyone who's actually doing more than that as a "sell out".
Why Gerard, to whom could you possibly be referring? 8-)
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 918 Location: Guildford, UK
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:06 am Post subject:
"Those that are against the SSPX dealing with "Newchurch" don't have that spirit of militant Catholicism that is the mark of a solid faith. They have a bunker mentality that does no one any good." ..... Gerard
This parenthesis of Newchurch reflects the current SSPX leadership's unclear thinking and strategy which now seems to be more liberal than hitherto. Surprisingly, its main opposition may not come from reconstructed Rome but from a solid block of SSPX priests and lay opinion that is militant enough to smell something fishy. Over the years we have seen so many once stauch traditionalists climb out of the "bunker" only to fall into the Roman melting-pot.
Call my too skeptical, if you want to, because I keep thinking about a cartoon in "The Remanat." In that cartoon, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is a spider who invites Bishop Fellay, a flying insect, into his web. I suspect that it's the wrong time for the SSPX to regularize now, since I don't trust the Modernists who are at the Vatican. Only some Vatican prelates are Modernists, I'm sure, but I wouldn't be shocked to discover that most of then were Modernists. I highly recommend Bishop Fellay's paper called "From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy," because it's an excellent analysis of ecumenism and of John Paul II's thought about it. If the Vatican expects the SSPX to accept the falsehoods that Bishop Fellay was criticizing in that paper, the SSPX needs to stay in its irregular condition.
Thus, evidently, we must have relations with Rome in order to accomplish this. It is an error to think that we cannot speak to them. We cannot wait for the day where they will wake up and be Catholic. How will they convert if they do not hear the Word of God (ref. to St. Paul). How can they get out the crisis if no one reminds them of the principles ? The ordinary way of God is to use secondary causes to touch souls. We are in the circumstances which the Good Lord has placed us, and we must do our duty, must do the maximum of good to these authorities. Let us pray then that these authorities receive the light. Let us have the heart of an Apostle. Do not put the light that we have received under the bushel, but let us desire to convert souls. If God has given us the grace to see clearly, it would be a sin to keep this light only for ourselves. We must have the desire to convert souls.
This is the Catholic attitude especially when compared to those particular priests that criticize the SSPX for taking the fight right to the source.
Imagine an army that won't engage the enemy for fear that they will basically lose to the enemy. What good is that? Those that are against the SSPX dealing with "Newchurch" don't have that spirit of militant Catholicism that is the mark of a solid faith. They have a bunker mentality that does no one any good. In fact, it's one thing to have a bunker mentality but it's another to criticize anyone who's actually doing more than that as a "sell out". I want Rome back for the unfettered Catholic faith. No one but the SSPX is doing anything to bring that about.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
