A magnificent sermon of Bishop Fellay, for the taking of the habit of the Seminarians at Flavigny yesterday. The second part of the sermon speaks of the current situation with Rome ) at around 17 minutes into the sermon.

(file in mp3 format, in French)

I usually take personal notes of many sermons, and I thought this sermon might be important enough to share with the forum readers. The entire sermon is magnificent, and I hope someone does a complete translation (if the Angelus people are reading this, I need say no more – If someone transcribes the French, I will translate it into English). Note that this is not a translation, nor anything official, but simply my personal notes translated into English for the aid of the faithful who might be disoriented by recent rumors.

Ks. Jan Jenkins +

=============

(Due to time constraints, I omit the first part of the sermon where Mgr. Fellay speaks of the Mystery of the Purification of Our Lady, the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, and the taking of the habit of the seminarians and brothers)

=============

(Personal notes taken in French, translated into English)

Secondly, we think also of the Temple, the Temple of the Church. We would like to briefly explain the situation where we are. There is nothing special planned, nothing new. Certainly, the devil, as is his normal manner of acting, is spreading rumors, mistrust, speaking of a ‘secret accord’ or that the Society would become an Apostolic Administration, something that is supposedly to be signed around Easter time. This is completely false, nothing but empty air.

What is true, is that there was a meeting with Cardinal Hoyos on the 15th of November, where we had explained again our reserves, and what we wait for from Rome before we do anything. We explained to him that the Catholic life, the normal Catholic life, is not possible in the Church today. Since the Council, this life has been rendered impossible.

We are not against an agreement, but in order to have an agreement, it should firstly be made possible. We wish to remain Catholic, so Rome must make it possible for us to remain Catholic. That is to say : firstly, negatively, to remove the abuses that are prevalent in the Church, to condemn them and take into hand the government of the Church. Secondly, positively, to reintroduce the Catholic life into the Church, in its fullness – to give back the Mass, which will put the Church back on the right track, towards Our Lord.

Now, there is at least in Rome a recognition that there is a crisis in the Church. Rome can no longer deny this. People serious in Rome are distraught by the situation of the Church today, even if in certain speeches they say the contrary. They are very worried.

But we are not in agreement on the causes of this crisis. The hierarchy would like to attribute this crisis to the situation in the world – the world, according to them, is to blame for this crisis.

Mgr. Fellay presented to Cardinal Hoyos a letter of Mgr. Lefebvre written to Cardinal Octavian one year after the Council, where he describes the consequences of the Council, without taking into account any abuses – just the Council itself – on how it would lead the Church into the present crisis. A remarkable letter that still holds true today – prophetic and actual. The problem is the Council – though not every abuse can be attribute to the Council, the Council is certainly the principle of the climate in which these abuses pass unchecked.

Mgr. Fellay then said that before ‘solving the problem of the Society’, one must begin by solving the problem in the Church. Once the problems in the Church are resolved, the ‘problem of the Society’ will be solved by itself.

The Cardinal then said : „What you have just said to me does not put you outside the Church – you are thus in the Church.“ The Cardinal continued : „I would like you to write to the Pope to ask him to remove the excommunication“.

And since then, we have done nothing, because evidently we do not ask for something which we have never recognized. We don’t ask to remove something which doesn’t exist. We have always refused to recognize the validity of these excommunications, and thus we will not ask to take away something which doesn’t exist.

Mgr. Fellay then said that even before talking of an annulation of the excommunication, there is another preliminary : the libery for the Mass.

Why the new tactic of Rome, to what end? Certainly the Pope would like to regulate the ‘problem of the Society’ quickly, but in their own perspective. On our side, we have always insisted : before any practical solution, one must eliminate the principles which 1/ are the causes of this crisis and 2/ would kill the Society if we were to accept them. We cannot therefore accept a practical solution.

The discussions thus remain at this level. We demand the examination of these deadly principles which have entered the Church, to eliminate them, to reject them. This liberalism, modernism, has entered the Church and kills the Christian life, and is manifested by ecumenism, religious liberty, the laicized state, these same principles which are repeated by the Pope even now.

The Pope recently said that by the laicized state, „we have returned to the Gospel“. But the Gospel says exactly the opposite : „He must reign“ (oportet eum regnare). All authority comes from God, and must answer to God. All must render an account of how they have exercized their authority. Our Lord is the King of all.

Also, the civil life has a great influence on the life of the soul, and the contrary is also true. The society must therefore be impregnated with the law of God. There must be a harmony between the state and the Gospel. But for the Pope, he says the state ought to be laic – a principle which is taken as a first principle, indisputable. Thus an immense stumbling block. In short, the problem is the Council.

Mgr. Flellay then says that we must simply continue the route traced out by Archbishop Lefebvre, our founder, simply this. The promise of indefectibility given to the Church tells us that one day she will survive this crisis. And so we must work, each one in our place, with all our force, to realize the survival of the Church.

Thus, evidently, we must have relations with Rome in order to accomplish this. It is an error to think that we cannot speak to them. We cannot wait for the day where they will wake up and be Catholic. How will they convert if they do not hear the Word of God (ref. to St. Paul). How can they get out the crisis if no one reminds them of the principles ? The ordinary way of God is to use secondary causes to touch souls. We are in the circumstances which the Good Lord has placed us, and we must do our duty, must do the maximum of good to these authorities. Let us pray then that these authorities receive the light. Let us have the heart of an Apostle. Do not put the light that we have received under the bushel, but let us desire to convert souls. If God has given us the grace to see clearly, it would be a sin to keep this light only for ourselves. We must have the desire to convert souls.

But to do this, we must work, with the great desires that Our Lord had, who is our model. Each day the priest offers a sacrifice of infinite value, a universal power. The grace of the Mass touches the entire Church – thus it would be ridiculous for the priest to restrict his heart to small things – he prays for the entire Church at each Mass. So let us keep this spirit, this intention of the church, with prudence, in union with Our Lady, and confident in Divine Providence. +

Marcel: Englische Textfassung…

der gesamten Predigt gibt es hier.

Marcel: St. Eusebius von Samosata

… ein Mitstreiter von St. Athanasius, ist wohl ein noch treffenderes Beispiel.
Während des Arianismus war es St. Eusebius von Samosata – nicht zu verwechseln mit den arianischen Häretikern gleichen Namens –, der von Diözese zu Diözese ging und Priester, die der ganzen Tradition unverfälscht verbunden geblieben waren, zu Bischöfen weihte.

Damit dürfte er das Primärbeispiel dafür sein, was Mgr. Lefebvre 1988 tat. Mit dem Unterschied, daß Mgr. Lefebvre ausdrücklich nur Hilfsbischöfe weihte.

Referenzen liefere ich vielleicht nach, wenn ich sie (wieder-) gefunden habe.

Damit genug für heute. Ist erstens eine unendliche Geschichte und zweitens bringt sie hier im Hackforum nichts.

Romano: @ Marcel

Ihnen müßte die gültigen Päpste Liberius, Honorius, usw., geläufig sein. Behaupten Sie also bitte aus Gründen des Messen mit gleichem Maßstab, daß St. Athanasius ein Schismatiker sei, vorbei an der Hierarchie gewerkelt, weil er eigene Bischöfe weihte ganz ohne päpstliche Permission.

Für diese Behauptung sind Sie, werter Marcel, immer noch einen Beleg schuldig. Mir jedenfalls ist nicht bekannt, dass Athanasius zu der Zeit, in der er im Konflikt mit der damaligen Hierarchie stand, Bischöfe geweiht hat. Falls doch, bitte ich erneut um Namen und Beleg. Eine solch schwerwiegende Aussage wiederholt einfach „ins Blaue hinein“ zu machen, hielte ich hingegen nicht für redlich. Denn auch der Zweck der Lefebvre-Apologetik würde kaum jedes Mittel heiligen.

Marcel: Übersetzte Zusammenfassung…

… auf der redaktionellen Seite hier.

(Für jene, die es nocht nicht gemerkt haben.)

Marcel: Ungut

Hw. Catholicus, erlauben Sie mir anzumerken, daß Ihre Ideen und Behauptungen zu diesem Thema falsch sind. Es spricht für Sie, daß Sie das nicht absichtlich machen.
(Ihre letzte Schnappsidee war die Unglaublichkeit, daß die Forderungen der Lieben Frau von Fatima erfüllt seien.)

Ihnen müßte die gültigen Päpste Liberius, Honorius, usw., geläufig sein. Behaupten Sie also bitte aus Gründen des Messen mit gleichem Maßstab, daß St. Athanasius ein Schismatiker sei, vorbei an der Hierarchie gewerkelt, weil er eigene Bischöfe weihte ganz ohne päpstliche Permission.

Wenn Gott die Kirche nun wieder rettet – er tat es oft, denn sonst gäbe es sie ja nicht mehr – dann gefällt es ihm, sich hierbei Menschen zu bedienen: heiligen Menschen.
Erzbischof Lefebvre ist hierbei keine Ausnahme. Daß ausgerechnet die Freunde der „Eiligsprechung“ sich darüber wundern?

Die gottgefälligen Werke des Erzbischof sind deutlich: die Bewahrung der überlieferten katholischen Lehre und des darauf fußenden katholischen Priestertums sowie der tridentinischen Messe.
Diese überlieferte Lehre wird wieder die Kirche dominieren, wenn das Orwellsche Zwiesprech von Vatikanum II ad acta gelegt sein wird.

P.S. Die hochgeschnellten Trefferzahlen dieser Leserzeitung ergeben sich daher, daß Angelqueen uns zurückreferenziert hat. Die angelsächsischen Traditionalisten lesen mit!

(Diese internationale Cooperation sollte sowieso noch viel weiter gehen.)

Catholicus: @Marcel

Damit die katholische Kirche fortbestehe.
Diese von Erzbischof Lefebvre und seinen Mitarbeitern, Nachfolgern und Anhängern verwendete stereotype Formel dient der Rechtfertigung all dessen, was Lefebvre an Aktionen mit Berufung auf einen wirklichen oder angeblichen kirchlichen Notstand gesetzt hat. Zweierlei ist dabei problematisch: Erstens wird hier rein konsequentialistisch, d.h. allein von den Folgen einer Handlung her argumentiert; demgemäß sind dann auch Bischofsweihen gegen den Willen des Papstes legitim, da sie ja den Fortbestand der Kirche garantieren. Zweitens wird hier ein vom Petrusamt und der Zusage göttlichen Beistandes für dieses abgelöstes Kirchenbild erkennbar; so als ob der Geist Gottes die Kirche in diesen Zeiten der Not nicht mehr über das Amt des Papstes und der mit ihm verbundenen Bischöfe führen könnte, sondern ein Weg außerhalb dieser Hierarchie beschritten werden müßte, „um die Kirche zu retten“. Im Grunde ist die Vorstellung, wir Menschen müßten die Kirche retten, völlig unhaltbar: Denn Christus selber leitet die Kirche auch in schwieriger Zeit, sogar dort, wo Hirten schwach sind und versagen! Er leitet sie jedoch immer durch die rechtmäßigen Hirten (Papst, Bischöfe), nie in Gegensatz zu ihnen.