Bishop Fellay (SSPX) Press Conference

[Sean_O_L]

**Schismatic-in-Chief: No Rush To Reconcile **

Enjoy the mitre to your heart’s delight – but he’s still excommunicated.

More from the noteworthy January press briefing with SSPX Superior-General Bernard Fellay:

Journalist: Did you set a date line with Rome?

Bishop Fellay: We are working on it. I cannot say it already exists. The only thing I can say is that precisely Rome would like to go fast, and it seems to us that we cannot go that fast…

In our circles we – in quotation marks – “do not trust” Rome and it takes quite something to overcome this mistrust, to take stocks of the present situation to see what did move, what changed, in which direction it is heading. And all this takes time".

Here comes some more Econe-style docility:

With the Roman authorities, I concluded saying: “If you want to regain our confidence, words will not suffice, it will require acts. You must regain control. You must condemn what must be condemned, the heresies, the errors. Whether they pertain to the faith, to morals, to discipline, to the liturgy, these acts of condemnation must be known. Now, there must also be positive acts. Catholic life which is presently made impossible in the official Church, the normal, traditional life must be made possible again. And this can be done only by fostering Tradition.”

Two millenia of Tradition, or just the 400 years of it which tickles Tridentine ears?

Much more at whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/

From: Rocco Palmo:

 

[muledog]

Dear Sean,

Not sure why you had to quote Rocco, who is known to be rude, acerbic, and ultra-progressive in his blogging. You could’ve just posted the original article and left it at that.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Two millenia of Tradition, or just the 400 years of it which tickles Tridentine ears?

I am no SSPX-ist, but the Mass as it was in the TLM goes back much further, with roots in the ancient Greek Mass.

Most of the TLM-ers, like myself (though I am not schismatic; I attend indult and believe in the validity of the NO Mass) believe that the Mass should be allowed to evolve…the NO was just sort of–poofed into existence.

That is never a good thing for continuity…the Mass should be recodified as it needs to, but I do not believe it should be modified at whim. It does no good for the immutability of the ceremony.
Anywho, I get to serve Septugesima (next Sunday) at the Cathedral (not chapel…benefit of being in communion with Rome), so I am in a good mood.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Servus Pio XII wrote:

I am no SSPX-ist, but the Mass as it was in the TLM goes back much further, with roots in the ancient Greek Mass.

Which really has nothing to do with justificying the schism of the SSPX.

Personally, I have attended the “old” Mass for about 59 years. (The last 8 attending the local liturgy.) I would certainly “like” to attend the old rite - but recognize (which SSPXers do not) that the Church has the power to make new Rites. Full stop! Whether the new liturgy was pastoral or prudent or even “likeable” are entirely different matters!

Most of the TLM-ers, like myself (though I am not schismatic; I attend indult and believe in the validity of the NO Mass) believe that the Mass should be allowed to evolve…the NO was just sort of–poofed into existence.

There is NO problem at all with attendance at the Indult Mass - it is a very positive indicator of unity with Rome. The SSPX HAS referred to such people, however, as “Indulterers” (which may well be a play on “idolators”)

That is never a good thing for continuity…the Mass should be recodified as it needs to, but I do not believe it should be modified at whim. It does no good for the immutability of the ceremony.
Anywho, I get to serve Septugesima (next Sunday) at the Cathedral (not chapel…benefit of being in communion with Rome), so I am in a good mood.

Congratulations, and God bless,

Sean O L

 

[Sean_O_L]

muledog wrote:

Not sure why you had to quote Rocco, who is known to be rude, acerbic, and ultra-progressive in his blogging. You could’ve just posted the original article and left it at that.

I only recently came across his site. His take was “available”. I also agree with his assessments on the SSPX. If they are untrue - then I am happy to acknowledge the error. Are they untrue?

 

[jimmy]

**Schismatic-in-Chief: No Rush To Reconcile **

Enjoy the mitre to your heart’s delight – but he’s still excommunicated.

More from the noteworthy January press briefing with SSPX Superior-General Bernard Fellay:

Two millenia of Tradition, or just the 400 years of it which tickles Tridentine ears?

**Much more at **whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/

From: Rocco Palmo:

You are giving misinformation. The traditional rite is a development from the Gallican rite which was a 4th/5th century liturgy. In the sixth century Gregory the Great made some small adjustments to the liturgy and made it uniform across the west. The council of Trent did not produce a new liturgy, it only made a few small adjustments to the liturgy that was in use. It is far more fluid than what has occured in the last 50 years.

I am not SSPX either.

That said, the SSPX are disobedient and causing heresy. They have no right to demand a change from Rome, they are the ones who need to change if anyone needs to change.

 

[BillyT92679]

Sean O L:

Servus Pio XII wrote:

There is NO problem at all with attendance at the Indult Mass - it is a very positive indicator of unity with Rome. The SSPX HAS referred to such people, however, as “Indulterers” (which may well be a play on “idolators”)

Congratulations, and God bless,

Sean O L

It seems like the SSPX view the Indult the same way that many hard-line Orthodox view Eastern Catholics. The FSSP must be “Uniate.”

That’s really unfortunate and sad.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It sounds to me that Bishop Fellay feels that we are making good progress, and he will soon be ready to readmit us to his church.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Jimmy wrote:

Two millenia of Tradition, or just the 400 years of it which tickles Tridentine ears?

**Much more at **whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/

From: Rocco Palmo:

You are giving misinformation. The traditional rite is a development from the Gallican rite which was a 4th/5th century liturgy. In the sixth century Gregory the Great made some small adjustments to the liturgy and made it uniform across the west. The council of Trent did not produce a new liturgy, it only made a few small adjustments to the liturgy that was in use. It is far more fluid than what has occured in the last 50 years.

No I am not, Jimmy.

However, I think that you have misconscrued Rocco Palmo’s comment “Two millenia of Tradition, or just the 400 years of it which tickles Tridentine ears?” as referring solely to the issue of the promulgation of the Pian Liturgy. I think that he views the matter far more broardly and sees the SSPX as being unable to accept the fact that the Church does have the power (as recorded specifically in the Council of Trent decrees) to introduce new Rites. But, further than that, is a refusal to be more “open” than was envisioned by the last “400 years.”

There is also the possibility of him using “poetic licence”?
That said, I have no dissent from the rest of your post.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I will confess that I have been relying on Rocco Palmo’s blog for my updates on the SSPX situation. I had never read it until a link was emailed to me for a specific mention of a local situation, and I noticed a post on the SSPX which has kept me coming back for more information. I have to agree that, on the whole, his head for Catholic teaching seems to be shoved up his rear so far that it resides somewhere in his stomach, but he at least gives good quotations from SSPX meetings. One of my favorites is quoting bishop Fellay as saying the devil instigated rumors about a possible apostolic administration and then quoting the same bishop talking about the probability of an apostolic administration.

 

[muledog]

Sean O L:

muledog wrote:

I only recently came across his site. His take was “available”. I also agree with his assessments on the SSPX. If they are untrue - then I am happy to acknowledge the error. Are they untrue?

Much of what is printed in his blog is correct. But much of it is based on opinion, and his opinions are well-known to most people.

It’s one thing to state a fact. It’s another to color this truth with condescending opinions and divisive commentary.

 

[Sean_O_L]

muledog wrote:

Much of what is printed in his blog is correct. But much of it is based on opinion, and his opinions are well-known to most people.

Well it is good that little of what is printed is incorrect; and it is, indeed, fortuitous that little of of what is his opinion contained in the majority of what he writes IS, apparently, incorrect! It appears, therefore, that it is good that his opinions are well-known to most people. Am I getting this right?

On the other hand, is it really true that “his opinions are well-known to most people”? Frankly, muledog, I find this very hard to believe! I, for one (who am certainly a portion of “most-people” - but, also as certainly, am a portion of the “few-people”) had never heard nor seen the writings of Rocco until just prior to posting the portion supplied above.

It’s one thing to state a fact. It’s another to color this truth with condescending opinions and divisive commentary.

I think that you may be a little sensitive about this guy - for some reason as yet unknown. But, how do you distinguish the difference between what is sad and very true fact from what you describe as condescending opinions and divisive commentary?

Does describing Bishop Fellar as a schismatic and excommunicant fall within that category?

Personally (on the matter of the Apostolic Administration) I would describe Bishop Fellay’s words as being on a par with Goebbles style propaganda! Is this a condescending and/or divisive commentary? Ahh, well - so be it. And, I guess that is how St John’s actions could be categorized in fleeing the heretic Cerenthius, eh?

Again, personally, I think that a little blood and guts should be spilled on a number of matters - such as clerical liturgical and moral abuses, abortions, and a whole fist-full of moral disorders.

 

[muledog]

Sean O L:

On the other hand, is it really true that “his opinions are well-known to most people”? Frankly, muledog, I find this very hard to believe! I, for one (who am certainly a portion of “most-people” - but, also as certainly, am a portion of the “few-people”) had never heard nor seen the writings of Rocco until just prior to posting the portion supplied above.

If you are an avid reader of catholic “blogs”, then Rocco’s website is one of the most-read in blogdom. I enjoy reading it because of his knowledge about goings-on inside the Vatican. That being said, he is extremely condescending with regards to anyone remotely considered “conservative.” A simple perusing of his blog will reveal this fact.

He derisively calls those who discuss church vestments "church queens, calls the Legionaries of Christ “pom-pom wavers”, and those of us on the so-called “rightward fringes” of the Church are called “love-challenged.”. Those who prefer the pre-Vatican II liturgies have “Tridentine ears.” Anyone who crticizes Card. Mahony is called a “screamer.” Need I say more?

 

[Sean_O_L]

muledog wrote:

If you are an avid reader of catholic “blogs”, then Rocco’s website is one of the most-read in blogdom.

Quite frankly, I do not have the time… I stopped reading Shawn McElhinney’s blogs a couple of years ago (even though I was Editor of his original “Prescription on Traditionalism” at Matt1618’s website; I simply do NOT have the time!!!

By the way - can you substantiate the claim that “Rocco’s website is one of the most-read in blogdom” - or is that simply an educated guess?

I enjoy reading it because of his knowledge about goings-on inside the Vatican. That being said, he is extremely condescending with regards to anyone remotely considered “conservative.” A simple perusing of his blog will reveal this fact.

As I say - no time to “simply peruse” - EXCEPT on the matter of the SSPX, which I found to be forcefully compelling.

He derisively calls those who discuss church vestments "church queens, calls the Legionaries of Christ “pom-pom wavers”, and those of us on the so-called “rightward fringes” of the Church are called “love-challenged.”. Those who prefer the pre-Vatican II liturgies have “Tridentine ears.” Anyone who crticizes Card. Mahony is called a “screamer.” Need I say more?

Well, I prefer to have links rather than allegations. I am certainly not going to attempt to delve through his archives to try to prove your assertions.

The initial problem, muledog, lay in your unsubstantiated generalizations; you MAY or MAY NOT be “on the ball” - but unsubstantiated generalizations (e.g. “his opinions are well-known to most people.”) raise logical warning bells - and hackles!

 

[muledog]

Sean O L:

muledog wrote:
By the way - can you substantiate the claim that “Rocco’s website is one of the most-read in blogdom” - or is that simply an educated guess?

Rocco just posted that his blog has had 300,000 “hits” since last June. Plus, his blog is linked to by most other “catholic” blogs on the web.

Well, I prefer to have links rather than allegations. I am certainly not going to attempt to delve through his archives to try to prove your assertions.

You don’t have to do much “delving”. I provided a link to his website. All of the comments that I attributed to Rocco are listed on the page that pops up (you may have to scroll down a bit to find them, or just do a search for the quotes I gave. Won’t take more than a minute or two.

The initial problem, muledog, lay in your unsubstantiated generalizations; you MAY or MAY NOT be “on the ball” - but unsubstantiated generalizations (e.g. “his opinions are well-known to most people.”) raise logical warning bells - and hackles!

Not sure why my comments would “raise hackles”, unless there’s more to it than meets the eye.

Anyone who reads catholic blogs on a regular basis knows who the “big names” are at “St. Blog’s”: Amy Welborn’s Open Book, Dom Bettinelli’s Bettnet.com, Phil Lawler’s Off The Record, Fr. Jim Tucker’s Dappled Things, Quintero’s L.A. Catholic, Shawn Tribe’s The New Liturgical Movement, The Shrine of the Holy Whapping(put together by a group of Notre Dame students), The Curt Jester, Ipsissima Verba, and of course, Rocco Palmo’s Whispers in the Loggia.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it contains most of the more well-known (among bloggers) sites to visit on a regular basis.

I would never argue that Rocco’s site is boring, dull, or uninformative. But his tone and demeanor leave much to be desired (from my perspective).

I leave it to others to visit his blog, read his comments (especially those numerous ones of self-congratulations), and tell me what you think.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**The moderator would like to suggest that people coming from various parts of the globe may not be as familiar with one regional area’s well known writer/blogger as are its residents.

That being said, please return to the subject of the thread.

Thank you.**