Pope Francis Meets Bishop Fellay…
Rorate Exclusive: Pope Francis received Bp. Fellay, SSPX Superior General, sometime in the past few months.
Rorate has learned and can exclusively confirm that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X – FSSPX / SSPX), was received by Pope Francis in the Domus Sanctae Marthae sometime in the past few months. In order to protect our sources, we cannot detail the date and persons involved in the meeting, but only generally locate it in time – if the current pontificate so far can be divided into two halves, the meeting took place in the second half.
We can also add as part of this exclusive information that it was not a merely fortuitous event – that is to say, many off-the-record meetings with His Holiness have taken place since his election precisely because his being at Saint Martha’s House make him much more accessible and available than many previous pontiffs. No, that was not the case at all – the pope was previously duly informed and duly met Bishop Fellay. The meeting was apparently short and cordial.
The Pope has a true interest in resolving this situation, it seems to be understood by our sources. Original Source
Comment
We have no way of knowing whether Pope Francis made one of his famous (or infamous) telephone calls to Bishop Fellay, but, however the meeting came about, is it to be welcomed? Is it a hopeful sign?
Comments (64)
I think the fact that the Pope wanted to speak with Bishop Fellay has to be a good sign. Even if his motives are not the best or whatever, God can use him. I’ve never met Bishop Fellay but I am always impressed with his interviews. I think only good can come of this.
There shall be demented moaning and foaming at the mouths among those of the ‘Resistance’ milieu.
I don’t think the resistance is going anywhere. In fact it’s dying out from all I hear but, yes, this news might start them up again.
Exactly, Josephine, they are an utter joke. The daft St. Kentigern Society that was set up in Glasgow seems to have folded. Good riddance.
Perhaps this meeting is what the recent “resistance”/williamson rumours have been based on?
Bishop Fellay gave an interview in Oensigen recently, which was published by DICI in early April. In it, when asked about contact with Rome, he said:
“Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
http://www.dici.org/en/documents/bishop-fellay-the-church-and-the-society-of-st-pius-x-news/
So, only a few weeks ago, the Bishop was clear that he had not asked to meet Francis and was quite content to sit tight, saying that canonical recognition is not the be-all-and-end-all. I think that is a very straight-forward, confident and reassuring articulation of +Fellay’s priorities.
And so it seems that the reported recent meeting must have been proposed by Francis. Although Rorates wording says Francis was “duly informed” which suggests otherwise (though that may be a face-saving phrase).
In any case, I welcome the news of dialogue – even if this is only another step on a long road. I appreciate some are concerned that agreeing on recognition may lead the SSPX to be consumed, but when we see how +Fellay speaks – as above – I think we can take confidence that he is no fool and is not about to stumble into a trap. His duty and responsibilities are crystal clear in his mind. Ultimately, however this situation is finally resolved, it will require dialogue as a starting point – so we must not fear dialogue.
+Fellay and SSPX spokesmen have criticised Francis and have at times made the Curia look like fools, by driving a coach-and-horses through everything they say and do. They have also made clear that a recognition is not the supreme principle here. Yet the Vatican still wants to talk. I think this is evidence that there is a growing recognition that the traditionalists are in the ascendency and the writing is on the wall for modernism.
The SSPX position grows stronger every year and, at least in the west, the Vatican seems to have two-choices. Achieve a recognition agreement and so allow the SSPX to inspire the renewal of the Church through tradition, or allow the modernist-experiment to continue to kill the Church – in which case the SSPX will soon be the only piece remaining on the chess board. Either way, tradition wins – the modernists only have to choose the manner of their defeat.
If an agreement was made – but ultimately broke down – then we would only revert to the current position. But if the terms were successful, then I think the already impressive growth of the SSPX would reach new-heights. I say this as I perceive there are many people who respect, and are drawn to, the SSPX but who stay away thanks to the scaremongering of Bishop Coco-the-Clown, or whoever their local prelate is.
I think the SSPX could gain much – vocations and lay people – in the short term, from an agreement, regardless of how things pan out. I am confident in the leadership of +Fellay.
I think – undoubtedly – that some in the Vatican will view a recognition as them managing to put a bridle on the SSPX, but they are wrong. As I said above, the modernists will ultimately lose either way, but if the SSPX have a canonical recognition, then the cat is well and truly out of the bag and the modernists will bleed out all the quicker. They know this is coming, hence the indecent and reckless rush to canonise even the Janitor who swept the halls at Vatican II.
That’s my 2p anyway!
Gabriel Syme,
Thank you for the Dici.org link of the Bishop Fellay’s recent interview in Oensigen. Bishop Fellay seems to me, clear and concise in what he says.
That he called for a Rosary Crusade, beginning on January first 2014, and ending on June 8th, who knows what the result will be. Our Lady has always answered such crusades –
The famous Battle of Lepanto, where Catholics forces defeated those of the Moslems, leaving a Catholic Europe.
Then of course, Communist Russian troops up and left Austria in 1955 after such a Rosary Crusade. Russia had never before left a conquered country.
I wonder, if the modernists fear Our Lady, and if they do – how great is that fear.
Very good, optimism Maximus – I feel +Fellay must be trusted. Any deviation equals division equals defeat.
This can only be a good thing, in my opinion. The Pope knows what traditionalists/ traditionalist sympathisers stand for, but derides us, by saying that the TLM is a ‘fashion’. I imagine he views trads as far right fire breathers, and his meeting with the courteous and honest Bishop Fellay will put paid to that, and Francis may reach some form of accommodation. Who knows the Rosary Crusade might work, with a full restoration of tradition.
I await an Editorial ‘gerragrip’.
I think this is a hopeful sign although there is always the possibility that Pope Francis is being “all things to all men” without really meaning anything to change. He doesn’t like the traditional Mass so although I’m hopeful, it’s not because of Pope Francis, but because if the Holy Spirit gets an opening, he will be able to put it to good use.
Excellent point. I am hopeful too, not because of Pope Francis, but because of Bishop Fellay. I trust him completely.
I trust Bishop Fellay, too, but I don’t think anything will come of this approach from Pope Francis. He’s totally wedded to modernism and isn’t interested in traditionalism. I think this is just him filling another empty hour on the phone or just wanting to tick another “job done” box on the list.
If the enemies of the Church, both internal and external, thwarted Pope Benedict from granting canonical regularity and protection to the Society, why would anyone think these same enemies would permit Pope Whatsis to do the same? Especially since Pope Whatsis is their puppet, whom they installed in the Chair of Peter to give them unlimited license to accelerate and complete their destruction of the Church (or so they fancy in their foolish vanity).
That aside, why would Bp. Fellay, or anyone else for that matter, trust this Pope to restore Tradition in any way, shape or form, after what he is doing to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and after the numerous mealy-mouthed and ignorant accusations he has leveled against us? To hope something comes of this meeting is quite foolish and futile, I think.
I do agree with Miles. though: this apparent trial balloon will no doubt give the “resistance” more of their fantasy ammunition….and more justification for their disobedience.
Greatpretender,
When I, in a fit of rage concerning what the Pope said about proselytism, referred to the Holy Father as a ‘nutter’, I was attacked for this from all sides, yet when you say ‘Pope Whatsis’, you get off scot free (as it were). I see some inconsistency here.
Catholic Convert,
When he says “Pope Whatsis” I presumed that Great Pretender couldn’t remember the Pope’s name 😀 which is a little different from calling him “a nutter” 😯
But note the general rule of thumb with Great Pretender, if there ever appears to be any inconsistency. You don’t have to be up to speed on the current population of the town in which you reside, do you? Whereas I, moi, have to be bang on up to date with the population of Glasgow and believe me, it’s no easy task. At any moment, GP might strike again!
For those of you who perhaps don’t know, or have forgotten the origin of the “population of Glasgow” jibes, allow me to inform/remind you that when Great Pretender flew over from America to attend/address one of our conferences some years ago, I met him at the airport. On the way to his hotel, he asked me what was/is the population of Glasgow – answer: “haven’t the proverbial clue”. When I told a friend in England who came up for a visit some time later, she said immediately: “that is a question only a man would ask. A woman’s first question on hitting a new town would be “where are the shops?” Exactly.
So, CC, as you can imagine, I live in perpetual fear of having that question posed again. How am I supposed to keep up with the births, the immigrants etc? And don’t tell me “Google is your friend” because when I presumed Google was my friend when I was looking for the meaning of “Magna Cappa” I ended up with egg on my face, if you recall.
No, CC there’s no inconsistency. I’m terrified of GP – that is my consistent state of mind. Be assured. You’re always going to be my favourite blogger, so worry not 😀
PS, Great Pretender, write out, 100 times “The Pope’s name is Francis” and that way you won’t forget it when you come onto this, your favourite blog. I can’t be living in fear like this forever! 😀
I fear that Gretpretender must have some form of memory loss if he can’t remember the Pope’s name. He has done it on other threads as well.
Don’t let’s make a drama out of it. Smile and move on.
I’m in full agreement with you, Ed, and I wish I could move on, but I believe in fairness. If it was Eileenanne, I’m certain you would be up in arms. Can I direct you to the ‘about us’ section and specifically point no. 2, as you and others have often done to me. I honestly don’t know if it is innocent banter on GP’s part (I hope it is) and I don’t want to cause rancour, but I have seen the error of my attacks on the Pope, on your kind advice.
Luv n stuff
Catholic Convert,
If you read my PS in my post at 1.23 pm you will see that I am basically telling GP not to call Pope Francis anything except Pope Francis. If that isn’t good enough, what is it you want me to do, precisely?
To be perfectly frank, saying “Pope Whatsis” is a very mild offence, if offence it is and it is very much an improvement over what I’d like to call Pope Francis, believe me.
Since it is bothering you so much, however, I repeat my instruction to GP not to ever say “Pope Whatsis” again.
Now, can you drop the subject and, incidentally, try to avoid telling me to read my own rules, please. It tends to irritate me. Especially since point 2 does NOT apply to GP who is, I believe, engaging in innocent banter. “Pope Whatsis” can surely not be categorised as a “nasty personal remark”. C’mon…
Loads of luv ‘n stuff…
Rorate has now posted an update with more detailed information:
“UPDATE (05/11/14): I.Media reports that Bishop Fellay came to the Vatican with Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nély (respectively the First and Second Assistants to the Superior General of the SSPX). On this occasion, the two assistants of the Superior General of the SSPX were present at the daily Mass celebrated by Pope Francis at St. Martha House.
Afterwards Bishop Fellay dined with Abp. Guido Pozzo and Abp. Augustine Di Noia (respectively the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and the Adjunct Secretary of the CDF) at the refectory of the same House. At the end of the meal, Bishop Fellay briefly met the Holy Father.
Vatican Insider has another account, with further details — and an acknowledgment of Rorate’s initial report.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/rorate-exclusive-pope-francis-received.html
Here is the link to the mentioned Vatican insider article with the “further details”:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-fellay-34011/
I am off to have a read just now!
Gabriel Syme,
Thanks for that update. Have just read the Vatican Insider report and if anyone harboured doubts about their (lack of) sympathy for the SSPX, there’s the proof, completely with “Lefebvrian” adjective at every turn. Also, the description of Bishop Fellay’s remarks about the “canonisations” as “attacks” on the Pope means I’m not taking anything they report seriously, re the Society. I’ve never been a Vatican Insider fan, and I’m even more sceptical about them now.
No problem Editor! I agree with you that the tone of the Vatican Insider article is rather sour.
However, from how they describe the brief meeting between +Fellay and Francis, it seems that Rorate has been a bit sensationalist (?):
Surely the real story is that +Fellay had been invited to dinner at St Marthas House by ++Di Noia and ++Pozzo?
Given the location, it seems that a brief meeting with the Pope was intended, but obviously the important discussions would have come over dinner with the Ecclesia Dei Archbishops, not during the brief encounter with Francis.
Its encouraging nonetheless, though I still think this could rumble on until such a time as we have a hierarchy who are sufficiently distant from Vatican II not to regard it as “their baby”, meaning they are not hyper-defensive of it.
Gabriel Syme,
I absolutely agree about Rorate sensationalising the story, when it is as you describe. It’s unlikely (to say the least) that Pope Francis would have any level of benign attitude towards the Society, although I imagine that Bishop Fellay would disarm him completely with his pleasant manner and, oh yes, the fact that he speaks the truth without ambiguity. Maybe need a translator present for that reason!
His pleasant manner is actually very pleasing and disarming!
I’m with Great Pretender here – I would read nothing hopeful into these reports. As the Vatican Insider reports, the ‘meeting’ was at the instigation of the Ecclesia Dei Commission which has maintained a steady ‘traditionalist’ presence in Rome for many years, with rather more downs than ups. The picture is clear from the report – Bishop Fellay, the Ecclesia Dei personnel and ‘a French priest Emmanuel De Taveau’ were sat (sic) at one table, and when the Pope rose after finishing his dinner at a different table, Bishop Fellay approached him, knelt and asked for a blessing. There was no ‘dialogue’ and it could hardly be called a meeting, as it was unlikely that the Pope would refuse to give a blessing, no matter who asked. That having been said, Bishop Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commision, must have had some confidence and purpose in engineering this situation, and unless that becomes clear we will never know. I think Bishop Fellay will have some explaining to do to his own – especially as the report tells us that two of the priests accompanying him attended the Pope’s ‘Mass’ in the morning.
Christina,
If, in fact, that part of the Rorate report is true about the two assistants attending the papal Mass (it’s not reported in the Vatican Insider version) then I guess it would be in much the same spirit as I would attend – as a curious tourist, to see just how “faithful” the Pope is to the new, and getting newer by the day, new Mass. Has to have the makings of a good dinner party story, surely?
Christina,
Why put Mass in inverted commas?
Petrus, I suppose the inverted commas slipped in for several reasons which were unconscious until you asked about them. I am more fortunate than many, (or even most) bloggers in that I knew only one ‘Mass’ for almost 40 years – the Mass handed down through the ages that was identically celebrated wherever in the western Church I went. I attended it, learned about it, taught children about it and loved it. When it was forcibly snatched from me and my unhappy (but obedient) fellow worshippers, the new rite seemed a counterfeit that I could never get my head round or think about as Mass. My head, of course, is not that of a theologian. Add to that excuse for the presumably offensive inverted commas the fact that the word ‘Mass’ has been superseded in much talk in the church today by ‘Eucharist’ (which was a synonym for Holy Communion in days gone by), the ‘Lord’s Supper’, the ‘table of the Lord’ or simply ‘a liturgy’. See, I use inverted commas a lot, and I’m sorry if you took exception to them. I do recognise the validity of the new rite or the Lord’s Supper.
Christina,
I took no offence to your use of inverted commas. I just wondered why as you don’t see that often, other than those who outright deny the validity of the New Mass.
Thank you Petrus. I’m glad you drew my attention to this habit, as it certainly could give the impression that the validity of the new Mass is being denied. I shall be more careful in future!
Christina,
I can understand why you find it more difficult to accept the New Mass since you were lucky enough to grow up with the Mass of All Time!
Madame Editor,
Given the lengths to which recent popes have gone to imbue Vatican II and all its accoutrements with respectability, and the efforts by the Bishops’ Conference to stamp out the teaching of the Faith in Catholic Schools, and the embracing of worldly mores by recent popes, and the determination with which the Novus Ordo Mass is being insisted upon as a replacement for the Mass of all ages, I cannot see, not for the life of me, why Bp. Fellay wishes to seek recognition by Modern Rome.
I will not accept any charges of sedevacantism, should they be brought. Pope Francis is the pope and I accept that. He just seems to be not doing the work which his divinely instituted Office requires of him. When Our Lord said: “Feed my sheep” I think He had in mind a different fodder to what is being propagated these days.
Surely it would be better for the SSPX to continue upholding Tradition as it has been doing since its foundation and to wait patiently for the day when the absence of grace in the Vatican eventually leads to the decomposition of what is, to all intents and purposes, a new and protestantised Church.
As St. Athanasius said: “They have the churches, but we have the Faith”.
Whether the Resistance flourishes or withers is in the hands of God, but what is certain is that the SSPX must continue to hold to its original purpose and protect the Faith, come what may.
Leprechaun,
I do understand where you are coming from, but I have some difficulties with your latest post.
Bishop Fellay is doing what the Society has always done – Archbishop Lefebvre constantly kept a line of communication open with the authorities in Rome. The Society should be, and is, leaven in the Church. I believe the Society is playing the lead role in combating the crisis and will be instrumental in leading the Church back to its senses. You cannot do that without contact and communication.
There does seem to be a strong element within the laity who attend SSPX Masses who appear to like the current situation of ignoring the Vatican and having our own little enclave. Well, I don’t like the current situation one bit. I want the Church to come back to her senses and if that means talking to the Vatican until we are blue in the face then so be it .
As for “The Resistance” (to nothing). They aren’t worth discussing.
Lep,
I never use terms like “modern Rome”. Rome is Rome. That there are modernists working from within is a given, but it would be a very odd kind of Superior General who refused to work hard to put right the irregular situation of the SSPX.
The time will arrive when the SSPX will be able to work to help in restoring the Faith from “within the walls” as ++ Lefebvre prayed would happen sooner rather than later. The daft requirement of the “resistance” (to nothing) types that all order will have been restored and the new Mass suppressed before any such regularization happens, makes no sense at all.
The resistance (to nothing) is not flourishing – it’s crumbling, and is most certainly not pleasing to God. The sheer arrogance of them to think that they know better than Bishop Fellay – they are the original “useful idiots” doing the work of the enemy and apparently blissfully unaware of the damage they are doing.
Gandalf sent me some essays he has written on the “resistance” (to nothing) – I will email them to you if you wish, as they are rather lengthy for the blog. I do, however, hope to publish them here in due course so if you prefer to wait for that blog discussion, so be it.
The following is from the SSPX American web site.
Here are the facts about a meeting between the Pope and Bishop Fellay on December 13, 2013.
(Source: SSPX/MG – DICI 05-12-2014)
On May 10, 2014, the English blog Rorate Caeli published under the pseudonym “Adfero”, some “exclusive information” whose sources could not be—according to him—disclosed. This “exclusive information”, spread by the media, revealed that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, met with Pope Francis. On May 11, the Roman agency I.Media published that Bishop Fellay’s two assistants, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Marc-Alain Nely, had attended the pope’s private Mass.
Frs. Pfluger and Nely have never attended the pope’s private Mass, and journalists who claim otherwise would have a hard time to indicate the day of the alleged assistance. Here are the facts:
On December 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay and his assistants went to Rome for an informal meeting at the request of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Following this interview, the Secretary of the Commission, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, invited his counterparts for lunch at St. Martha House’s dining room where they were joined by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Assistant Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith. It is in this large refectory that the Pope takes his daily meals, away from other guests.
Archbishop Pozzo insisted on introducing Bishop Fellay to the pope while the latter was leaving the refectory. There was a brief exchange where Pope Francis said to Bishop Fellay, according to the usual polite formula, “I’m very glad to meet you.” To this, Bishop Fellay answered that he was praying a lot, and the pope asked him to pray for him. Such was the “meeting” that lasted a few seconds.
In the interview he gave to Le Rocher (April-May 2014), Bishop Fellay answered the following question:
Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis?
”
Rome made a ‘non-official’ approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.”
Vianney,
Many thanks for that. At the rate people send me links to the latest Rorate Caeili “exclusive” I thought they were entirely reliable. My eyes are now opened, scales fallen.
Thank you Vianney, I was just about to post that link!
BTW, it looks like Rorate Caeli has thoroughly discredited themselves by spreading ridiculous rumors.
They’ve made quite a following spreading rumors. One wonders what kind of traditional Catholic gets edified by writing and spreading rumors. Or even by reading about them. Remember all the posts about a soon-to-be forthcoming deal between the SSPX and Rome?
Thurifer,
“They’ve made quite a following spreading rumors.”
Maybe that’s why they’ve stopped allowing comments. They would have to be prepared to be exposed as rumour-mongers. I notice they have quoted the SSPX statement only to make out that their original report was accurate. Clearly, they are not to be trusted.
Yip, but without their input there would be a lack of information surely!
Michelangelo,
What’s the point of information that turns out to be false? I’ve relied on Rorate many times when reporting material here and in our newsletter, accrediting them as a reliable source. Now that I know differently, I won’t be paying much attention to them, or, at least, I will want the information verified by another source.
Also, Rorate give the impression of being pro-SSPX (I always thought) but their statement, untrue, that the two SSPX priests attended the Pope’s Mass now makes me question that. They seem to be mischievous.
I agree!
I agree they should not be trusted. They seem devious to me. Plus, they tend to congratulate themselves over supposedly being the “most viewed” traditional Catholic blog. But you know, since when does that mean they are telling the truth always? The truth is the truth even if it’s unpopular. We traditionalists know what that’s like indeed.
There have also been posts from them saying they have never gotten anything wrong. I don’t remember the Holy Ghost promising infallibility to a weblog…
Doesn’t anyone find it strange that SO MUCH supposedly insider information and ‘scoop’ would find its way to them? It’s like they’re the whistleblowers of Catholic Tradition. What makes their writers and contributors so important?
Sorry for turning the comments into a screed against that blog!
Thurifer,
I didn’t know that claim about being the “most viewed” – how do they know that? I can only tell how many visitors we get here, not how we compare to any other blog (not that any of us cares!)
We are deliberately side-lined anyway: our Bishops – for example – have a policy of ignoring us, so deep is their fear of our gathering support. I had a telephone call a few months ago from a woman who had been given a copy of our newsletter and was delighted with it. She rang me to say that she planned to speak to her priest, asking why he is not encouraging the parishioners to read this publication… When I explained that the clergy and bishops do everything in their power to keep all knowledge of us from people like her, she was flabbergasted. Yes, there really are innocent souls abroad like her good self.
As for the questions in your penultimate paragraph – yes, I find it strange. However, any claim to “insider sources” is now suspect, given this gaffe about the alleged meeting between the Pope and Bishop Fellay.
It was a post from October 29, 2013. I haven’t viewed their blog in a number of months. They were proud of having more viewers than the Society’s website.
Boo to Rorate! The rebels are active in the US and they spread fear and doubt
about the intentions of the SSPX leadership. Some folks are susceptible to their propaganda and are being drawn off into a bad attitude regarding the Church and the Papacy. This kind of tabloid like reporting by Rorate Coeli can easily be used by the rebels to create doubt about the intentions of Bishop Fellay. How hard would it have been to check with the SSPX before publishing?
On the canonical status of the Society, our previous Prior was privy to some of the details Pope Benedict was prepared to offer them before he caved in to the pressure from the enemies of the Church. While he didn’t divulge the details, he did say that the proposed agreement and the protection afforded to the Society therein would have been like nothing seen since the Middle Ages!
I don’t look for that agreement to be resurrected any time soon, given the current Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith, the current Pope, and the current strength of the enemies of the Church. Therefore, while Bishop Fellay will no doubt be favorable to keeping the lines of communication open, I am sure his primary focus is on the internal strength and mission of the Society: continuing to prepare it for duty as the future lifeboat of the sinking Barque of Peter, continuing to train and ordain good and holy priests, and continuing to preserve and pass on the precious patrimony of our Faith.
I do wish people who share so much in common would not get quite so angry with each other.
Rorate do not deserve the vitriol they’re getting here for this item.
Although I do not attend SSPX I am a great admirer of Bishop Fellay. I have quite the opposite sentiments for the current occupier of the seat of Peter!
I have to admit I would love it if Bishop Fellay had a meeting with the pope. What better man to try to correct his misguided leadership.
If such a meeting had occurred and was more lengthy than purported it would not be surprising that the good bishop would try keep it under wraps. There was enough ridiculous infighting when he had those talks with Benedict XVI.
Of course you guys are probably right and there was really literally nothing to write home about. But don’t start getting worked up against Rorate either, essentially you’re on the same side. Restoration of the true faith is what matters.
Burt,
It was very mischievous indeed of Rorate to claim that the two SSPX priests had attended the Pope’s Mass. If true, that would very likely have caused a huge storm within the Society, because the laity travel miles in order to attend a TLM at an SSPX chapel, and SSPX priests travel miles every Sunday to provide the old rite. Rorate know that. Thus, given that there is not an ounce of truth in that claim, their integrity is now, sadly, entirely suspect.
And I don’t know why you think we have “so much in common” – the above falsehood alone demonstrates that we have very little in common with those who run Rorate.
I noticed some time ago that one of their leaders listed on their sidebar is Joseph Shaw of the LMS – a man who, at one time supported us but, without explanation (I presume because we became openly supportive of the SSPX) he turned against us. Evidence: he ran a blog called Catholic Action UK where he linked to our newsletter but then – without warning – the following notice was posted at the top of his homepage:
“This blog now focuses on the more wacky organisations calling themselves ‘Catholic’ which seek to neutralise the Church’s teaching authority by offering an alternative ‘Catholic’ view.”
I emailed to ask if we are to be counted among the “wacky” organisations but, despite several attempts to contact him, he has never replied. Much later, and on an entirely different matter, I emailed him but again, no reply.
So, I can’t see that we have “so much in common”. I’d love to be wrong, but based on the evidence to hand at the present time, I can’t see it.
And, for the record, I do not see any “vitriol” on this thread at all. It is a common error to confuse honest and frank criticism as “vitriol” – it’s not. Plain speaking is plain speaking. It doesn’t signal hatred or any other vice. It’s just… er…. plain speaking 😀
Editor,
I am someone who is all for plain speaking. I take what you say on board about my use of the word “vitriol”.. Sometimes my plain speaking gets me on the wrong side of people that I support. I will agree that because J Shaw did not answer you to reassure you that you were not included in his sights as ‘wacky’ he might have less appreciation of you than he should. Basically I have the same disappointment that he does not realise you and he both seek the restoration of the true faith. If there had never been such a thing as the novus ordo there would be no reason for either blog to exist!
That’s why I follow and thank God for both your websites.
Burt,
“…because Joseph Shaw did not answer (your emails) ….he might have less appreciation of you than he should.”
With respect, I am not concerned with anyone “appreciating me”. Nor even with his rude failure to reply to my emails. Regrettably, it’s not sll that unusual for people to ignore emails. Personally, I consider it a complete lack of good manners, and regard it as exactly the same as ignoring someone who speaks to me in a room. It takes all of a few seconds to click on reply and say “thanks for that…. Busy right now but will get back to you asap” or even a simple “Thanks. That’s interesting.” You’ll get my point. All Shaw had to say was “well, actually, yes, I do think CT has gone wacky” or “not at all…. CT isn’t wacky.” Given his frequent letters in the Catholic papers, I really don’t think writing is a problem for him.
I’m afraid I don’t respect people who dodge necessary controversy. He (wrongly) perhaps imagined that to admit the truth – if the truth is that he disapproves of our open support for the SSPX – would lead to acrimonious correspondence. Not with me, it wouldn’t. My response to people who still attack the SSPX (I had brief correspondence yesterday with one such reader who insists they are “outside” the Church) is to simply point out that no pope has ever said that, offer perhaps the example of the liberal Cardinal Cassidy, who took up the reins of ecumenical work in the Vatican, when he told a press conference that the Society would not be included in his outreach programme since the situation with the SSPX is an “internal” matter; I then bow out of the correspondence as gracefully as I can. I woke up this morning to a short “thank you” email from the gentleman with whom I corresponded yesterday saying we would simply have to disagree about the SSPX and guess what – I clicked on “reply” to say “Thank YOU – and God bless.” End of.
So, while I think Joseph Shaw is manifestly lacking elementary manners by ignoring my emails, that isn’t why I don’t trust Rorate. I don’t trust Rorate because I know now that their alleged reliable sources are no such thing, and because I’ve also discovered, via one of our bloggers here, that this is not a one-off, that they have form on this. Given that I have included their reports in our newsletter in the past, this is of great concern to me, because we do all that we can to provide accurate reports.
One other thing, Burt. When some members of the LMS committee (or whatever they call their ruling elite) some years ago, starting attending the SSPX Masses, they were summarily dismissed from office. So, to say that we all share the same desire to restore the Mass is not to tell the full story. The LMS, like every other group given recognition by the diocesan authorities, have had to compromise to get that recognition. The Society is the only organisation that insists on keeping the full treasure of the Faith intact, until the crisis is resolved. Thus, they are a prod to the consciences of the LMS and all the other “traditional” (up to a point) groups.
Here endeth the lesson – have rambled on a bit…Apologies.
Rambled? What, me? Moi? 😯
Editor,
I whole heartedly agree with your point that SSPX are the only ones intent on keeping the full body of the faith intact. They are ridiculously maligned by neo-catholics too.
I do thank God that I am blessed by being able to attend Holy Mass by a priest in my city who offers a low Mass and does so by virtue of Summorum Pontificum.
He may have connections with LMS folk and Fraternity of St. Peter too.
I am not the sort of person that gets terribly involved in such things.
I just go to Mass, grateful that I can receive the sacrament the way I did as a boy before the apostasy happened.
I do think it is a good thing to support priests who are bringing the true Mass back into mainstream parishes. After all we all want it to be back in all parishes in all the world eventually don’t we?
I never intend to attend a Novus Ordo again in my life. If the priest whose Mass I attend ever gets moved to a remote part of the diocese and there is no Tridentine available in a reasonably nearby parish I am fortunate in having a Society Church in my city too. in such a circumstance I will be there like a shot.
I will also admit that, as I have no car these days, the parish i go to is a lot more convenient to get to than the Society church so there is a less noble factor about where I go to Mass too.
Dear Editor,
It has been denied
Regards LD
Lionel,
I know – see Vianney’s comment at 4.35pm yesterday. He quoted the SSPX statement in full.
Ok, thanks LD
Eponymous Flower is now carrying an official SSPX article (from the US District) regarding future interaction with Rome.
The article was originally published by the US district in early April, but now perhaps has added significance following the news of +Fellay having been in Rome.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/official-sspx-comment-on-future.html
Gabriel Syme,
Thanks for posting that US District statement, repeating what Bishop Fellay (and before him Archbishop Lefebvre) have said all along. That we cannot keep the treasures of the Faith to ourselves but take whatever opportunity presents itself to work as a leaven within the Church. The “resistance to nothing” brigade could do with reading that statement very carefully, linked to Eponymous Flower, and reflect deeply, especially on the concluding (two) paragraphs.
Madame Editor,
I have never been able to develop much of an affinity with Rorate Caeli. They seem to be extraordinarily supportive of the FSSP, a group of priests who were originally pro-Tradition, but who agreed to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Masses and to not preach about the errors of either in exchange for permission to continue to offer the Latin Mass.
Noting that the Franciscans of the Immaculate have been banned from offering the TLM and have been placed under governance, one wonders how the FSSP will react when the Vatican dispenses similar treatment to them.
If they refuse to accept the pope’s authority, they will presumably be putting themselves into schism – but would it be a justifiable schism?
If they place Obedience above Truth, they will say the Novus Ordo Mass exclusively and thus become no different to others who have trod that route before them.
This then begs the question of what would become of the SSPX were Bp. Fellay to accept recognition at no cost, only to be faced some way along the road with a demand to give up offering the Sacrificial Mass? I wonder sometimes which will come first: The point where attendance at Sacrificial Masses exceeds attendance at Commemorative Masses, leading to the collapse of the latter, or the point where apathy rules and only a handful of the Faithful strive to keep the Faith alive.
Would that the pope would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and we could all return to a period of peace.
Leprechaun,
I am at a total loss to understand why anyone thinks Bishop Fellay will – for want of a better phrase – give up the ghost. He has made his position absolutely clear in words of one syllable, posted by other bloggers on this thread. I do not lose a minute’s sleep over Bishop Fellay’s leadership. He is sound and absolutely trustworthy. If you hear anything else, say “Get behind me Satan!”
Editor, I agree with you totally regarding Bishop Fellay. He is the best man for the job and if and when he talks to the Vatican he only doing what Archbishop Lefebvre would do. He said that he was always willing to talk because that is the only way to work things out.
Leprechaun, I don’t think that Rome will try anything with the FSSP. They were founded as a Tridentine Rite order unlike the Franciscans of the Immaculate who were NO and went over to the Tridentine Mass. I believe some of them have ignored the ban as their convent in St. Mawgan, Cornwall, is still using ONLY the Tridentine Mass. I don’t think Rome would dare to try anything with the orders who were founded for the Traditional Rite.
On another note I’d like to tell you that JPII has now performed his second miracle. A man turned up for Mass last night and he told us that the canonisation had been the last straw for him. He couldn’t believe that the Church could go ahead with declaring him a Saint after all the things he got up to. He was sitting yesterday reminiscing about the “old days” and wondered if the old Mass was still being said anywhere. He looked on the internet and came across the Edinburgh chapel’s website and noticed that there was a Mass that evening so he came along. He as very impressed with the Mass, the chapel and the fact that, despite torrential rain, 19 people turned up. His local parish only gets half that at an evening Mass. Do you think I should contact the Vatican to get this miracle recorded?
Go for it, Vianney! A few more miracles like that and I’ll be off to buy my JPII medals and stuff.
He as very impressed with the Mass, the chapel and the fact that, despite torrential rain, 19 people turned up
—————
That’s great news Vianney! Hopefully he will begin to attend regularly. Its good to see the website is paying off for the Edinburgh Church.
We in Glasgow should really look to get a website for St Andrews too.
Gabriel Syme and Vianney,
It is heartening to see new faces at an SSPX Mass and to learn that they found their way there via a local web site and I share the delight of you both.
The first step in obtaining a web site for St. Andrew’s is to write to Fr. Morgan and ask permission to set one up. Also to ask for said web site to be featured in the SSPX-GB web site, as are the local web sites for Ss. Margaret & Leonard in Edinburgh and St. Anne’s in Leicester.
With these permissions you can then send out for a five year old child to build a simple web site and pray that the Holy Ghost will guide more souls to Tradition.
Have you seen this page on the SSPX-GB web site:
http://www.sspx.co.uk/page_chapels.htm
where you can scroll down to the Edinburgh and Leicester local web sites?
Comments are closed.