|Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Alan Aversa [ Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:29 am ]|
|Post subject:||Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference|
Audio only: http://www.sspxaudio.com/20121228-Bisho ... erence.mp3
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.
|Author:||John Lane [ Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:14 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference|
Alan, somebody published this transcription, which I haven't checked (I haven't listened to the audio so I can't check the text), but which may interest you.
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 document 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 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.” 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. 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 interepreted 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!
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. 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. 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; what they say in the Council has been condemned before. Especially Religious Liberty, but also Ecumenism for example, very clearly the contrary.
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. [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 regcognise 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. 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. 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 Castrillon. Cardinal Castrillon told me the following: "What I am going to tell you now, if you repeat it, I will be forced to deny it."
Understand? I tell you something, if you repeate 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!
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.
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! 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 realiy 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.
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 tht 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.
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? 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!"
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!? I say it now, but at the moment when it happened I could not. It's clear that it was impossible.
So what did I do? I did something in such a case you shouldn't be able to do. I short-cutted the Congregation of the Faith. If this message which I got, telling me "Don't give attention to that letter!" was not true, what I was doing here would mean it's the end, it's boom, the big explosion. Because if someone is a boss, is mandating someone to deal with you in a difficult question, and you disagree, and you try to bypass him and you go straight to the boss, the boss is going to say "Get lost!", is going to say "You have to go through the man I've given you." If you don't do that, you demolish his authority. And so I short-cutted the Congregation of the Faith, [0:40:00] and I wrote another, a new letter, something new, to the Pope. What I tried to do it was something delicate. I saw in the discussion of the 16th of March, that in fact if Rome was so hard against us, it was because they thought that we really reject absolutely everything since '62. Everything. Means, the Pope, the Council, whatever they teach, they do, they decide, we reject everything. That was my understanding, they believe that from us. Now that's not true! When we say we accept the Pope as Pope and we pray for him, that's something real, it's not just a nice wording in the air. And so I tried to write a letter in which, first announcing the principles of the Faith and the magisterium, I tried to show them that, that in fact, even in the Council there are some things we accept. But it is very delicate because there are some things we accept, some things we reject, so to make this balance was very delicate.
Anyway, after... how much? ...two weeks, I got the message from the Pope, "Now send this same letter to the Congregation of the Faith." Which means that he would have accepted it. And that's why at that moment you had the newspapers who said: "Well, there will be an agreement now, it's about to be an agreement..." and so on, and so on. [0:42:02] Which has never been true! Why? Because first, this text, which seemed to be more or less accepted, finally will not be accepted. And secondly, much more important, I have always from the start sdaid to Rome: "We are glad to be recognised by the Church. But there is one condition. And this condition is that we are accepted as we are." And to be accepted as we are means that we continue to do what we do. That we continue to learn, or to teach what we do. That we continue to attack what is wrong, the errors. That we continue to have our liturgy. The old one. And I said that's a condition where I just quoted Archbishop Lefebvre in fact, because he's the one who said that, and I just gave the quote, condition sine qua non of recognition by Rome. And so, at that moment where I hear the Pope seems to be satisified with my letter, I wanted to absolutely to verify the second point which was for me more important: are we or not allowed to continue to attack? And I made an extra trip to Rome to verify that. It was in May. And during this meeting, I saw the Congregation of the Faith in fact they wanted to correct my text. And I sent a letter to the Pope and to Cardinal Levada saying: "You change one word: finished!" Now we have the meeting of the Cardinals who study my text. Cardinal Levada at the beginning and at the end of the meeting will say: "We don't touch the text." You have the Cardinals who express themselves, you have a vote. The vote had one abstention and all the others in favour of the text. And nevertheless, when I get the text in my hands it is changed. And all the things I have keeped out because I cannot accept them they put in again. What happened?
What happened is simple. As I was not happy with the answers they gave us when I said "Can we continue to attack?" I made a test. I published an interview in DICI. It was the beginning of June. And there I speak about the errors of Vatican II. And I speak about, let's say the.. how do you say? ...how bad the New Mass is. And they used that. They went to see the Pope with this interview, and with this they made the changes of the text. I know that precisely for two reasons. And the second reason is that when I was called to Rome on the 13th June, they had my interview in their hands. And they said "You cannot say that there are errors int he Council., You cannot say that the New Mass is bad." And I also know that Lombardi wrote the text tothe Pope, and that they had the whole Friday afternoon from the Congregation of the Faith with the Pope, and they discussed that. So that's why when, on the 13th June I received this corrected text, I don't need one minute of reflection, and on the spot I say: "I'm not signing that!" A few hours before, because I get that, that letter, the meeting is at 5 in the afternoon, a few hours before the head of the Freemasonry in Rome says: "There will be no agreement!" That means that the Freemasonry knew about these happenings. I cannot say more. I just say what I know.
I know also that the state had prepared a counter-action which would be a breach of relations with the Vatican, if the Vatican would have recognised us. And it's a big state. Several Bishop's conferences had prepared also counter-attacks. Precisely the German-speaking, they had prepared something which, in which it was clearly declared that they don't want to have anything to do with us, and if possible they request that we leave the country, close all our churches, chapels there, and remove all the priest, that was the plan for the German speaking countries. Against the recognition by the Pope, you have to understand, if the Pope would have recognised, that's what they would have done. Plus it was open in the text, open opposition against the Pope. It would have been a messy, very interesting situation, but just, just to say these are the facts. So it's clear that many people thought: "Well, it's not far from an agreement," but in reality it has never been so far.
|Author:||John Lane [ Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:15 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference|
Because once again the text is one thing, this condition sine qua non is another one, and the third is the canonical situation. Because, once again, for us, we cannot be in any kind of situation, we cannot be in the hands of the Bishops. It's impossible! we see with the Society of St. Peter, Christ the King and so on, what happens to them, and I may say that's one of the major problems for them, all their apostolate is dependent on the Bishops. And with this, the Bishops they can request from them what they want. And we know there are good people amongst these priests, but they are blocked. They cannot open the mouth. If they do so it's finished, have to go. That's why it's one of our first major requirements that we will have our own jurisdiction of the faithful. And, amazingly, [0:50:00] 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...
Err... ...pffff... ...what else? I may say, here you already have the major, major points, major lines of what happened. [0:51:00] It's not everything. There is something more confusing, which is, and that, that's a point which was for me from the start, what does really the Pope want? If he says that he really wants to recognise us, he cannot at the same time request from us the impossible. And we definitely, we definitely are opposed to these errors which we find in the Council. And we're not going to say it's OK. No! I concluded, and also, I may say with all these people who were talking to me, that most probably the Pope was ready to downgrade, at least a little bit, the Council. To say: "Yes, it is true, the Council is not infallible, so you may discuss about these difficult points," as it seems that they said. [0:52:00]
And so when I got this letter, this new proposal from the 13th of June, I wrote a new letter to the Pope, where I said that, I said: "Knowing, you know that we're opposed to the Council, and nevertheless that you want to recognise us, I had to conclude that you were ready to put aside the problem." And I gave a historical example, because it would not be the first time that that would have happened in the Church. I gave the example what happened in the decree of union with the Greek, at the Council of Florence. At the Council of Florence, that is in the Middle Ages, well the late Middle Ages, say Renaissance, you had documents where the Church did really manage to re-unite the Greek Orthodox and the Armenians. They did! You have the decree there signed! What happened then is when the people came back to the East, to Constantinople, to Russia, they were kicked out, say the people refuse what they, these Patriarchs had signed. But they did. And there is one point that is very interesting with the Greek, the Greek Orthodox. There was one point where they were not able to be, to come in agreement. And it was about the marriage. The Orthodox say that if a part is in unfaithful in the marriage, this marriage can be annulled, can be broken. The Catholic Church says no, can't do that. But they were not able to find an agreement, so what did they do? They made an agreement dropping the case. They did not talk about the problem. If you read the decree on the Greek and the decree on the Armenians, you will see the difference because with the Armenians they mentioned the problem. But with the Greek they just dropped it.
And so I mentioned the case, say maybe that's what you do, you just leave the problem at the side in order to go ahead, say, well, maybe that's what you want. And then I continued: "But now, as you put these things again, I have to conclude that I was mistaken." And so I write him: "Please tell us what you really think! What you want!" I also request an audience, but of course [chuckle] this was not granted. But I got a letter, an answer to that. 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."
And um... that's the situation. I say with this clarifications, things are cleared but everything is blocked. We say the, I still now wonder what we can do to, to continue doctrinal discussions. Can we, is it any way possible? I still don't know, well I have some ideas, but everything is blocked! And you come now to a curious situation, which can be a little bit confusing, which can explain also what happened recently. You have the Pope, who still, still would like to solve the problem. He can have many reasons, err, some good, some less good. Some good is like, for example, to repair. He did say to one of his close people, you know the Society have suffered so many injustices, so they know, [0:58:00] you know, that they have been unjust with us. So to repair, that's fair. He wants to avoid a schism, he said it publicly. Not that we pretend, or we that don't, [chuckle] we always claim that we are in the Church, we don't want to make a schism, but they, they may have this fear that we would finally end up in a schism. That's possible. On their side. Also, ecumenism is a possibility, it is trying to make easier the way for the Orthodox, because the Orthodox they look very closely at what's happening with us. You see there is a kind of familiarity for them, for the Orthodox, because they also they want to stick to Tradition, and if the Church is not able to arrange things with their, it's own tradition, the Orthodox will say, [0:59:00] "Well, if you're not able to do this with yourselves, you're not going to do it with us." So, in, on the contrary, you know, when the Pope greeted, or well, said "It's OK to say the Old Mass," the Patriarch of Moscow said, "That's good!" So he proved, he proved this, so to say, opening to Tradition which helped the Church.
It's interesting, to see these things. I don't say that it will go much further, but trying to understand why does the Pope want to do that. But, err, so he wants that. Things are blocked. He nominated a Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith who is very clearly opposed to us, and strongly opposed to us. And so in order to, [1:00:00] ...how do you say that?... to balance the thing, he nominated another person [DiNoia?!] who seems to be more open or who wants to represent the position of the Pope, which makes it a little bit messy, and so when Muller said, you know, "There's no discussion any more with the Society," the Pope was very angry and he asked the number two to write a statement in which it is said, "No, we have to be patient with the Society, err, we want to continue the discussions," and err... In fact they know that if my answers are considered as official then the progressists will make pressure on them and say, "Well, now we have the answer, so..." But as they would like to still hope to have, to get to a solution, they say "No, it's not official!"
I sent three times my answer. I don't know why it would not be official. But, just to, let's say, relieve the pressure, they say, "No, it's not official!"
I can write it a fourth time, it's not a problem, err... it's really a mysterious situation, but we have to understand, that does not meant that we change anything, no we maintain our point. The problem is in Rome, not in us. And the problem is that we have the Modernist who would like to finish the story of the Society, with a condemnation, and we have some people who still hope that we'll get to something. I frankly don't know how [1:02:00] it would be possible. For me, this situation now is really blocked. Really blocked. And the only way to solve that is to really, well, what I already wrote in 2001, so it's not new, 2001, I wrote to Rome: "You make the problem, you want to deal with these problems the wrong way. You have to change the status quaestionis." So it is, the status quaestionis is, you, you explain the problem. I say, "You deal this problem wrong, the wrong way." And why, why do I say so? How did we get into this thing? How did you come here? Because you were facing a reality. A reality which was unbearable. A reality you knew that if you would continue this way, you wuold hurt your soul, you would sin, you would hurt God, you say "No, I cannot do that. I have to stop there. I jump out of this." All of us were in that situation. It's because of facts, we are facing, facts which come from the authorities, in the Church, which are unbearable. That's what I said to the Pope in the year 2005 during the audience. I told him: "This situation in the Church is such that the traditional life has been made impossible in the Church."
I told him: "Every day, now, you have priests, you have religious, sisters, brothers, you have laymen who come to us, who prefer to be punished, [1:04:00] sanctioned, and join us rather than to stay in the situation in which they are, because they have a problem of conscience, they can no longer go that way." And I said, "If you want something, if you want to, to get back with us, you have to change that situation. You must bring back Tradition in the Church." And that's what I repeat today. That's what I say. I said to them, "You cannot in the name of the Faith oblige us to deny the reality. You cannot say: 'Because the Church cannot say anything wrong, there is nothing wrong in the Council. Because the Church cannot do anything wrong, the New Mass is good.'" I say, "Look at the reality. It might be difficult to explain how this is possible, but the reality is there, it's not lying. The New Mass is bad.
The New Mass is leading the souls in losing the Faith, into Protestantism. It's clear, it's a fact. I told them, I told them, "Look! It is this liturgy which is making that the priests lose the Faith in the Real Presence. And so many!" You know, their answer to me? They did not question the fact that priests have lost the Faith, because it's true. I have two figures. Recent. First, a long time ago I tried to calculate, and say, mmm, about 40% of the priests don't believe in the Real Presence. Now, last year, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Trier in Germany said 80% of the priests in the Diocese no longer believe in the Real Presence. And also recently, there was an enquiry in the Diocese of Sydney in the northern part of Sydney, enquiry to the priests. So the priests were able to answer anonymously, they need not give their name. 78% of the priests don't believe in the Real Presence. That's the reality! And I say to them, that's, the cause is the New Mass. And they answered to me: "No. No, no, it's because they have been badly trained." And in fact it's even worse. [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.
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.
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?
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 documented, 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.]
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] document, 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.
|Author:||John Lane [ Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:12 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference|
I should mention that the transcript includes some pretty odd comments etc. which were evidently added by the transcriber. E.g. "the ne-CES-sa-ry [necessary] document" - who knows what that is meant to signify. I checked the audio and Bishop Fellay didn't particularly mispronounce the word "necessary". Likewise with the "smile audible" comments. Hard to imagine an audible smile, and having checked the audio, I admit I cannot hear anything which would indicate a smile.
|Author:||Alan Aversa [ Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:17 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference|
Smiling can certainly change the sound of voice (e.g., in Spanish, smiling while pronouncing a "ch" syllable makes it more authentic); the transcriber must be a linguist.
John Lane wrote:
Hard to imagine an audible smile, and having checked the audio, I admit I cannot hear anything which would indicate a smile.
|Author:||Alan Aversa [ Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:22 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Bp. Fellay's Dec. 28, 2012, conference|
I still don't understand why he didn't mention the Bp. Williamson expulsion in this conference. Wasn't that a big event in 2012?
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group