Monday, June 30, 2008


By Patrick Archbold

For the record from Father John Zuhlsdorf:
Before reading this, I am getting it second hand and also I have no way to get separate confirmation. So, we have to take this for what it is worth. It’s up to you.

Here is one sentence of the three sentence message I edited it to fix the English:

I´m back from Econe. I spoke with some people. Rome has accepted a response and wrote back positively. All is going well … this was said by Castrillon.

Remember that Card. Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave Five Conditions to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX.

Read the rest >>>>


Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr. Archbold, for making this entry of mine (from Fr. Z. blog) a separate thread. It is important enough to deserve that, since it contradicts the equally unfounded but very boastful report from "Le Figaro". I'm sure you'd agree that Fr. Z.'s source is more reliable than "Le Figaro". In any event, we can assume that the latter is based on thin air, since it quotes no letter and no source. I'm am not claiming that "Le Figaro" must be wrong, only that its prediction is not credible.

From what we have seen from various sources, we can now conclude the following:

1. Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos met with Bishop Bernard Fellay on 5th June. This, in itself, is significant, since there has been almost no direct contact between the two (as Bishop Fellay likes to insist) in the last two years.

2. At the meeting, the Cardinal presented the statement of five points which we have seen, and the Cardinal signed it.

3. The Cardinal demanded that Bishop Fellay sign it by 30th June. According to Bishop Williamson and other Society sources, should the latter not sign it by that date, Rome might/would (we don't know which) have the entire Society declared to be in a state of formal schism.

4. Bishop Fellay found that he could not sign it because he was unsure of its implications. However, he also decided not to refuse the points. Therefore, he wrote a letter to the Cardinal and sent him this letter last Thursday, 26th June. We don't know if this letter asks for clarifications or if it merely recounts what, as regards the five points, Bishop Fellay is willing to agree to--or both.

5. According to Fr. Z.'s contact, the Cardinal or the Pope (or both) was pleased by the content of this letter and sent back a "positive" response on Saturday, 28th June.

6. Today is the twentieth anniversary of the unapproved consecrations.

7. Tomorrow is the twentieth anniversary of the declaration of excommunication.

8. Wednesday is the twentieth anniversay of the publication of the declaration of excommunication.

In my view, something is about to happen--something. I hope that it will be a withdrawal of the 1988 declarations plus an extension of jurisdiction directly from Rome for Society Masses and confessions.

Now is the time for prayer, not for heeding left-wing journalists bent on undermining tradition by misreporting everything, hoping to influence the outcome.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, B.C.
Dominion of Canada

Anonymous said...

Tom Heneghan, some journalist from Reuters, has now written a response to these negotiations which is only mildly presumptuous, as opposed to the wildly presumptuous claims in "Le Figaro". You can read it now on Fr. Z.'s site.

Here is the rather mild error of Hennegham: Fellay responded "by challenging the conditions Rome set for its return to the Catholic fold". If you read the rest of his article and then compare this with Fellay's own words, you will see that there is no evidence that Fellay has challenged the conditions set forth in the five points. He has said that he was uncertain about what some of them entailed but did not refuse them. If he did not refuse them, then he obviously did not challenge them. At most, he has asked for a clarification. At least, he has responded to what he thinks they mean. In either case, the unconfirmed evidence we have suggests that Rome was pleased with his response and sent a positive reply to it.

Reuters, as we know, is no friend to traditionalism. But we see that it is taking a subtler but equally nefarious line than that of "Le Figaro". What these liberals are trying to do is to find, in advance, that Fellay's response is inadequate, thereby preventing a lifting of the 1988 declarations of excommunication.

Let's hope that the Pope ignores them and listens only to God, our Lady, SS. Peter and Paul, and his conscience. I think that this Pope is inviting a positive response from the Society so as to justify a withdrawal of those 1988 declarations. Let's pray for a good outcome.


Lynne said...

I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope...

Anonymous said...

More news from Fr. Zuhlsdork's site. It confirms and clarifies his first note.

He says that he received this from a "a reliable source" which he trusts very much:

"I have heard from a source who has first-hand information that Cardinal Castrillon is happy with the answer from Bishop Fellay and has sent him a brief note in response.

I have also heard that the Cardinal will pass on the letter to His Holiness.

So behind the scenes it actually looks much brighter than the impression given by liberal press or some of the … SSPX bishops."

Comment: Well, in the case of the Society bishops, nothing they have said actually contradicts this development, because this letter came entirely from Bishop Fellay. But the comment here about the liberal press is dead on.

Second comment: the letter of Bishop Fellay has been passed on to the Pope himself. If we are hearing of this now, it must have happened early today Rome time or even yesterday. There is time for the Pope to sign a prepared document withdrawing the 1988 declarations of excommunication. This could be done sometime tomorrow and then published on Wednesday, exactly twenty years later to the day.




Anonymous said...

More analysis.

First, I note that Fr. Zuhlsdorf has apparently more than one source. His first source was unconfirmed and second-hand. His second source "has first-hand" knowledge.

Secondly, I point to the hastiness of the Cardinal. The letter from Bishop Fellay was sent on Thursday. By Monday, he has received the letter, read it, analysed and judged it, drafted and sent a response, and forwarded it to the Holy Father. Moreover, the response must have reached Bishop Fellay now because his source comes from Ecône (why not Menzingen? I'm not sure.).

This suggests that the Cardinal is trying to settle this in time to mark the annivesary of the 1988 declarations. If so, something should be signed by the Pope tomorrow and then published on Wednesday.

Pray hard. Pray harder.