Comments on: SSPX Bishop Fellay snubs pope’s ultimatum on rejoining Rome Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: Frank Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:01:47 +0000 I have served at Mass for His Excellency and have been in one of his conferences in person and the way in which you portray him is an offense to any honest person. I agree that your ways are totally contrary to the professionalism required from such a serious task as it is journalism: this is yellow journalism, please mature. The Society does “snubs” Vatican propositions, but the problem is that, unfortunately, the authorities do not want to obey Our Lord in many things. The problem is that the Vicars from 1960’s have thought that they know better than the King, who has the virtue of being Omniscient. This unfortunate attitude of the Cardinal Hoyos himself is an immature act in which he reveals private correspondence as if he were member of a gossip magazine rather than a member of the Roman Curia. You, as gossip lovers do nothing but follow up with the game. Please, let us grow up and, for the sake of our souls have respect when we treat with matters of His Holy Church. Thanks God, our spiritual father, Archbishop Lefebvre, chose well whom was he to confer bishopric and they will not be intimidated, neither by these Roman tyrants (who someday will be overthrown) nor from you who only work to put more pressure on the situation. Please, grow up.

By: Elizabeth Clarke Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:56:21 +0000 And….there is a Whole Lot missing between the final full paragraph that ends with God….and the final line that says Let us Choose…Way out of context…

By: Elizabeth Clarke Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:12:56 +0000 I agree that there should have been an interview. This issue is deeper than is stated, and care must be taken. Not only are Bishop Fellay’s intentions assumed, but so are the intentions and actions of the Pope himself. Everything has to be kept in context. Fortunately, neither the Bishop or the Pope are influenced by things that are said in the media…or the assumptions of others. These are only distractions. Either interview and report, or keep your nose out of it. If you do not know all of the facts on both sides….find them out first…THAT is reporting. Otherwise…it is your own opinion.

By: Tito Edwards Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:10:04 +0000 The Truth,


By: Brian Charles Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:50:10 +0000 WOW! Someone interviewed the SSPX spokesman. Imagine that.

PARIS, 27 juin 2008 (AFP) – Les Lefebvristes n’ont pas l’intention de répondre à l’ultimatum du Vatican

La Fraternité Saint-Pie X, fondée par Mgr Lefebvre, n’a nullement l’intention de répondre à “l’ultimatum” que lui aurait posé le Vatican pour tirer un trait sur le schisme provoqué il y a vingt ans par le mouvement catholique intégriste, a indiqué vendredi le porte-parole de la Fraternité.

“La Fraternité n’a pas l’intention de répondre à cet ultimatum”, a déclaré à l’AFP l’abbé Alain Lorans, porte-parole de la Fraternité sacerdotale Saint Pie X, joint par téléphone à Ecône (Suisse).

“Nous n’envisageons pas d’accord pratique ou canonique avant d’avoir traité des questions doctrinales qui se posent depuis Vatican II”, a indiqué ce responsable de la Fraternité fondée par Mgr Marcel Lefebvre.

“Mgr Bernard Fellay – ndr: supérieur général de la Fraternité – est surpris par le décalage existant entre la procédure d’ultimatum et le contenu de cet ultimatum qui reste très imprécis”, a ajouté l’abbé Lorans.

Le quotidien italien Il Giornale avait fait état, en début de semaine, de la proposition faite par le Vatican à la Fraternité Saint-Pie X de souscrire à cinq conditions pour tirer un trait sur le schisme intervenu il y a vingt ans.

Le Vatican aurait donné à la Fraternité jusqu’au 28 juin pour répondre positivement à ces questions.

Ces cinq conditions posées par le Vatican concerneraient la reconnaissance de l’autorité du pape et l’engagement à ne rien dire contre l’Eglise, mais ne feraient aucune allusion au concile Vatican II.

Selon l’abbé Lorans, le supérieur général de la Fraternité, Mgr Fellay aurait écrit jeudi une lettre aux autorités vaticanes.

By: Thomas Burk Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:23:26 +0000 Reading your headline, I nearly despaired, thinking this truly was his response. Lo and behold! It wasn’t! Just something you made appear to be a response to the “ultimatum” (much to strong a word, by the way).

Do you ever wonder why more and more, readers question what’s reported by a truly biased mainstream medium?

By: The Truth Is... Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:34:36 +0000 All this flimflam and pretentious nonsence bores me rigid!

The Pope runs a big business operation – period!

As the MD he demands obedience.

Jesus Christ is not even a consideration.

It is a theatre of power games and the Pope is extravagantly enjoying the luxury of being a control freak.

By: Brian Charles Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:01:10 +0000 Again, Tom. Catholic “rebels”? That is not inflammatory at all is it? Has Bishop Fellay put out anything official saying this is the SSPX position. Everyone worldwide reading your article thinks now that he has.

But Fr. Schmidberger in Germany has on his website that an official response is forthcoming. So again, this is NO OFFICIAL SSPX response.

It may indeed be the official response once the official response is announced by Bishop Fellay. But then again, isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do. Call people and interview them?

You say that other information nowadays makes up journalism. So true. It does. And rarely does anyone interview anyone to ensure the accuracy of the contents of the story.

IF the SSPX condition is announced to readily accept the Holy See’s preconditions, will you issue a CORRECTION story? Will you?

Of course not. Do you have a telephone? Call him or Fr. Schmidberger.

Mr. Summer: Could you enlighten us as to the different demeanors of these SSPX priests? Do they seem to be for the Holy Father or against these preconditions?

By: H Summer Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:30:54 +0000 I listened to the audio file. (in fact listening to it now…), He is speaking in plain English easily understandable. He is basically ignoring the offer as much as I can tell.
My wife and children are in Mexico right now and stayed the first week down there in an SSPX sponsored monastery.
They will be at an SSPX church in about a week in another location (Fr. Novak’s for those who know him)
He contacted her several times since the beginning of the trip to Mexico. His last contact with her was after the Bishops sermon. She told me he now sounds different and his general demeanor was a bit off from prior conversations. It also has to do with a seminarian traveling with her in another Latin rite order. But it goes deeper than that because the seminarian will not be with my family at that SSPX church. Something is definitely changing the mood of at least two SSPX priests I know of since the 20th.
FYI, continued listening of the Bishop’s sermon shows his discomfort with the “Motu Proprio”
While in Germany a couple of months ago, I was amazed at the outright disgust the SSPX followers there had with the Pope. They consider him nearly evil. I know this is not the case everywhere in SSPX, but for what eve reason in Bavaria, they really do not like him or the Motu Proprio. They told me it is basically an attempt to crush SSPX and was aimed directly at them. This point could be argued, but does not really matter given that this is what they believe (in Bavaria) regardless of what the true facts are. Because when it comes down to it, Perception Is REALITY. What they perceive is what the believe to be true.
I just pray for Catholic Truth and God’s grace to reach the hearts of all and that it directs us towards true eternal salvation.

By: Tom Heneghan Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:44:32 +0000 People are commenting on this blog without reading what I posted here precisely to let everyone see what Bishop Fellay said in public rpt in public about the ultimatum. Let’s go through the points:

1. Brian says: “The existence of the letter from the PCED to the SSPX was not even known by media on June 20. Maybe Bishop Fellay is talking about it or maybe he is not.” Tito says “the speech was prior to the Vatican notice.”

The speech was not prior to the Vatican notice and the word “maybe” raises a doubt that is not there in the text. The full text on the blog shows that Bishop Fellay said the following in the first paragraph: “Certainly, my dear brethren, you expect from me today also a certain update on how are things going with Rome…” He then said in the third paragraph: “It is so far that Rome has given me an ultimatum.”

So Bishop Fellay brought up the issue himself on June 20 and called the letter an ultimatum. True, the European media did not know about the existence of this letter until Andrea Tornielli broke the news on June 23. But Bishop Fellay announced it in public on June 20, albeit in a faraway Minnesota town where few if any reporters were present. So the issue is not whether the media knew about it — it was kept secret until then — but whether and when Fellay himself knew about it. And he had clearly received the letter before that date and wanted to talk about it to his audience.

2. Brian says he knows Bishop Fellay could not have said the SSPX has held the same position for 40 years because the group has not been in existence for that long. Look at the penultimate paragraph in the blog text where he says: “We have fought now for 40 years to keep this faith alive, to keep this tradition, not only for ourselves but for the Church.” He’s not talking about the Jesuits or the Dominicans here, he’s talking about the SSPX. The number comes from him, not from me. The SSPX was only founded in 1970, so it as an official organisation has only been fighting about this for 38 years. But if you look at the “Short History of the SSPX” on their website ( iii_history_1.htm), you’ll see the year 1968 plays an important part in the birth of this movement. Is it so hard to imagine that Bishop Fellay dated his calculations from that year? Or simply rounded off 38 to 40?

3. Several readers say journalism is about interviewing people and ask if I interviewed Bishop Fellay. This is a partial presentation of what journalism is. Many news stories you read are not based on individual interviews, but on texts or audio of public statements made by newsmakers who know their words will be reported and are responsible for what they say. In this case, Bishop Fellay made it abundantly clear where he stood. The SSPX has frequently issued texts or audio files like this in the past and we have used them, as we do other newsmakers, without any problem. It is only in this case, where readers disagree with my reading of the sermon, that these protests have suddenly come. It makes me wonder how they understand these clear statements that they can examine themselves in text and audio. After reading or hearing what he said, can one really say he sounds conciliatory towards the Vatican? When he says they want the SSPX to “shut up” but “we are not going … to shut up”?

4. Some complain that I took the speech from a website, the unspoken implication being that it might not be true.
If you see George Bush saying something on television, do you doubt he said it because you did not hear it with your own ears? Or if you hear Gordon Brown on the BBC? Readers don’t know much about the news business if they don’t know that newsmakers and their organisations make audio clips available on the Internet to spread their message beyond their immediate audiences — just look at the Obama and McCain websites in the U.S. election campaign. It’s not as if this was a rogue recording that might or might not have been from Bishop Fellay himself. I could confirm it was him because I recognised his voice, having met him several times, including at Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet, the SSPX church in Paris. The source is clear, the statements are clear.

5. As for the headline, it clearly states that Bishop Fellay made these comments. The text also indicates he spoke in the plural “we,” which he as leader of the SSPX presumably can do. Even so, I pinned it all on him because this could lead to a split within the group if some decide to say yes to the Vatican and others decide to say no. If this had been an official SSPX declaration of an official position, I would have said that. Headlines are necessarily concise, but these were not misleading. Readers who were confused jumped to conclusions before reading all the details. The comments above showed that readers could overlook clearly worded statements by Bishop Fellay and misunderstand the message.