54 Answers from Bishop Fellay

[At_Trent]

Nothing new here. SSPX is in the talks to tell the Pope what he is doing wrong, and telling Rome what they have to change.

IBTL (I bet thread lock.)

I’ve never read anything that indicates the SSPX points to the pope as the problem. If the SSPX are what they are continually said to be here on this forum, I doubt the excommunications would have been lifted, nor would Rome be discussing Doctrinal matters with them.

And something else never acknowledged here, is that there are other’s in the Church who are expressing some of the same concerns as the SSPX.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The difference is one of setting precedence within the Catholic Church.

Canon Law protects old customs while innovations aren’t protected. And calling them “traditions” doesn’t work.

OK, that does make sense. :yup:

It also brings up some other questions, but I have to do some research first.

 

[laszlo]

I’ve never read anything that indicates the SSPX points to the pope as the problem. If the SSPX are what they are continually said to be here on this forum, I doubt the excommunications would have been lifted, nor would Rome be discussing Doctrinal matters with them.

And something else never acknowledged here, is that there are other’s in the Church who are expressing some of the same concerns as the SSPX.

The Church is waiting them back. They only have to ask for lifting the suspension.

As of this article the SSPX fulfilled the other condition: Bishop Fellay does not criticize the pope and through him the Church.

 

[JReducation]

I believe the interview went OK. I would give it 3/5 stars for several reasons, be patient with me.

The journalist seems to have his mind made up about certain things and asks the question in such a way that the bishop is cornered. A good example was the comparison between John Paul II and Benedict XVI on ecumenism. Someone offered another example. Everyone knows that they are both very committed to this cause, but their approach is different. The question was leading the bishop to either say that one is better than the other or to say what he did, that there were similarities. What else could he say? At times it seems that the journalist is leading the bishop.

When the journalist asked about Catholics attending mass in the Extraordinary Form at a non SSPX church, the bishop said that they should consult with the SSPX first. This statement is an affront to the Holy Father’s description of their current status. The SSPX clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) have no canonical place in the Church at this time. There is no reason for a Catholic to attend an illicit mass, when he can attend a licit one. The rule is that a Catholic may attend mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill his Sunday obligation, not to support the SSPX. Let’s say that you pass up an EF mass celebrated by a local diocesan priest and attend at the local SSPX chapel, because the SSPX told you that they do it more apporpriately, you are no longer just fulfilling your Sunday obligation. You are taking sides. Ecclesia Dei Commission was clear on this question. As far as I know, the rule has not changed.

I believe that the bishop should not have made that statement or should have worded it differently, maybe leaving out the “consult with us first”. It sounds as if he’s establishing the SSPX over the Magisterium of the local bishop. That’s impossible, even theologically. Bishop Fellay knows this.

The rest of his responses were very good. They allow one to think. They did not seem to be pushing anyone to do anything that would be in conflict with the hierarchy or the Holy Father, except for the one that I mentioned. It was very good of him to say that people could pray that the Assisi gathering not happen, but he did not say that it should be boycotted or publicly protested. That was a very well chosen response. However, the question was asked in an unbiased way leaving the good bishop to answer without compromising himself.

One thing that always makes me curious is that the bishops of the SSPX seem to speak more about these talks than the rest of the committee. I thought that the original rule was that there would be no public statements until everything was settled. The other members of the commission have avoided interviews. Nevertheless, we get to read and hear the SSPX comments on the talks, especially via the Internet. We don’t hear the observations or comments of the other members of the commission or of Cardinal Levada, who chairs the whole thing…

We don’t have the benefit of both sides to weigh. I just wonder if it would not be better if the bishops of the SSPX also avoided interviews on these talks. This way, when the final report is released, it will be what it is, the final word on the matter and the case will be closed. Hopefully, it will have a happy ending.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The difference is one of setting precedence within the Catholic Church.

Canon Law protects old customs while innovations aren’t protected. And calling them “traditions” doesn’t work.

This is true. However, dogma protects the pope’s right to bind and unbind. As long as he does not tamper with Revelation (dogmas and morals), he can bind and unbind anything at any time. He is not bound by old laws and disciplines.

Canon Law has no authority over any pope, because popes are the Law-Givers. In philsophy and in Ecclesiology the Law-Giver can change the law at his discretion. The giver is not bound to that which flows from his authority.

Whether something new can be called tradition or not will depend on the reigning Pontiff. He has the power to make the links. We cannot come between the pope and his power. That would be rude and unreasonable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

When the journalist asked about Catholics attending mass in the Extraordinary Form at a non SSPX church, the bishop said that they should consult with the SSPX first. This statement is an affront to the Holy Father’s description of their current status. The SSPX clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) have no canonical place in the Church at this time. There is no reason for a Catholic to attend an illicit mass, when he can attend a licit one. The rule is that a Catholic may attend mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill his Sunday obligation, not to support the SSPX. Let’s say that you pass up an EF mass celebrated by a local diocesan priest and attend at the local SSPX chapel, because the SSPX told you that they do it more apporpriately, you are no longer just fulfilling your Sunday obligation. You are taking sides. Ecclesia Dei Commission was clear on this question. As far as I know, the rule has not changed.

That too bothered me. However, I guess it is possible, as interviews often illicit off-the-cuff remarks, that he really meant to verify that it was a proper TLM and not fraught with abuse. But boy did it come our wrong.

 

[pnewton]

Bishop Fellay certainly doesn’t intend to “tell the Pope what he’s doing wrong.” That is a biased slant.

FYI - It was the *interviewer *that judged the past and present Holy Father.

 

[JReducation]

That too bothered me. However, I guess it is possible, as interviews often illicit off-the-cuff remarks, that he really meant to verify that it was a proper TLM and not fraught with abuse. But boy did it come our wrong.

That may be. One does have to make allowances for the fact that an interview is usually unrehearsed. You may say something now and later think that you could have said it differently.

FYI - It was the *interviewer *that judged the past and present Holy Father.

The interviewer led the bishop right into that pit. I don’t blame the bishop. In simple words, the interviewer asked the bishop if the SSPX was going to tell the Vatican what is wrong and how to fix it.

If the bishop had answered in the negative, that would have raised the question, “Why these talks then?” The bishop came off sounding as if the SSPX was an alternative magisterium. I would hope that is not what he had in mind.

The bishop would have been better off if he had said that he hoped to share what the SSPX sees as problematic, but is open to whatever the Vatican has to say in return. Again, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, because the interviewer was not as objective as a journalist should be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

When the journalist asked about Catholics attending mass in the Extraordinary Form at a non SSPX church, the bishop said that they should consult with the SSPX first. This statement is an affront to the Holy Father’s description of their current status.

I read that a little differently. In the Archdiocese of Chicago, we’re blessed with 10 EF’s on Sunday. At least, however, one of them employs a woman reader. Apparently they found ways around the 2007 SP. This is probably the types of EF’s the bishop is referring to. I doubt if someone would need to consult the SSPX priest located in the same diocese before he were to attend Mass at, say, St. John Cantius.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Nothing new here. SSPX is in the talks to tell the Pope what he is doing wrong, and telling Rome what they have to change.

IBTL (I bet thread lock.)

This interview was released in 2 parts. This one is obviously the first half. Maybe the OP can provide a link to the 2nd half when it is posted. Assuming, of course, that this thread isn’t locked.

Please avoid speculating what I will do or not do.

Simply go to the sticky that says READ BEFORE POSTING and scroll down to the post on the SSPX. If everyone complies with those rules, there is no reason why this thread cannot remain open.

If you are unsure if a post is appropriate, just ask.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[maurin]

FYI - It was the *interviewer *that judged the past and present Holy Father.

fYi, I was quoting paulinva. He didn’t seem to be quoting anyone.

 

[JReducation]

I read that a little differently. In the Archdiocese of Chicago, we’re blessed with 10 EF’s on Sunday. **At least, however, one of them employs a woman reader. **Apparently they found ways around the 2007 SP. This is probably the types of EF’s the bishop is referring to. I doubt if someone would need to consult the SSPX priest located in the same diocese before he were to attend Mass at, say, St. John Cantius.

You may be right. He may be referring to this kind of situation. However, restraint is important. If you’re a bishop with no jurisdiction, it is better to avoid making such a suggestion. Maybe a better comment would be, “We’d be happy to help you find a place.”

Even auxiliary bishops have no jurisdiction unless it is given to them by the Ordinary of the diocese. They are very careful as to what suggestions they make and what they assume they can answer. I deal with an auxiliary regularly. When I raise concerns that are not within his jurisdiction, he always points to the Diocesan Ordinary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

fYi, I was quoting paulinva. He didn’t seem to be quoting anyone.

Thanks. You know, I didn’t really care a lot for some of the things said, but I really hate to see the Archbishop judged too harshly over an interview. Those can be slippery sometimes and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. We still need to be patient and wait for the conclusion of these talks.

 

[maurin]

Thanks. You know, I didn’t really care a lot for some of the things said, but I really hate to see the Archbishop judged too harshly over an interview. Those can be slippery sometimes and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. We still need to be patient and wait for the conclusion of these talks.

Thank you for saying these things. Very much appreciated!

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. You know, I didn’t really care a lot for some of the things said, but I really hate to see the Archbishop judged too harshly over an interview. Those can be slippery sometimes and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. We still need to be patient and wait for the conclusion of these talks.

I don’t always agree with Bishop Fellay. But I find him to be polite and more prudent that others. I find that he’s much easier to talk to than the laity who are big fans of the SSPX.

One quality that I admire about him is that he rarely attacks persons. I’m told that he is not happy when the laity or even some of his clergy come out on the attack of the Vatican, the bishops, or the clergy and religious. Someone who knows him once told me that he is very concerned about the good image of the SSPX. He avoids presenting it as another Protestant group or another group of rebels. There are certain points and people that he does not discuss or allow others to discuss.

This came through when he was asked about the beatification of John Paul II. He bypassed the question completely. Some SSPX lay people have blasted the idea left and right.

When Bishop Williamson made his comments on the Shoah, he ordered him to back down when Pope Benedict expressed his disapproval. Later, Pope Benedict publiclly said, “I would never introduce an anti-semite into polite company. Had I known a few days before, I would not have included him in the remission of the excommunications.” Bishop Fellay did not respond or allow Bishop Williamson to respond.

What I see in this interview is that despite the fact that the interviewer tries to corner him and the fact that he does have his own opinions on many things, he maintains his composure and he does not go on the attack. In other words, he is as consistent in this interview as he is in other situations. I can disagree with the man, but I would be dishonest if I said that I find him to be disagreeable. They are not the same thing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

I don’t always agree with Bishop Fellay. But I find him to be polite and more prudent that others. I find that he’s much easier to talk to than the laity who are big fans of the SSPX. …

When Bishop Williamson made his comments on the Shoah, he ordered him to back down when Pope Benedict expressed his disapproval. Later, Pope Benedict publiclly said, “I would never introduce an anti-semite into polite company. Had I known a few days before, I would not have included him in the remission of the excommunications.” Bishop Fellay did not respond or allow Bishop Williamson to respond.

Yes, Mgr Fellay is at least a gentleman. So, too, it seems, are Mgrs de Gallereta and de Tissiers. That leaves one lemon among the four (of whom three are extraneous, but that’s from or for another thread) SSPX bishops.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, Mgr Fellay is at least a gentleman. So, too, it seems, are Mgrs de Gallereta and de Tissiers. That leaves one lemon among the four (the of whom three are extraneous, but that’s from or for another thread) SSPX bishops.

That’s why I enjoy reading his interviews. They don’t make me want to put them down. I’ve never had the good fortune of reading an interview with Bishops de Gallereta or de Tissiers.

As I said, even when I disagree with Bishop Fellay, I allow for a margin there. When you’re under the gun in an interview you sometimes say things that you later wish you had said differently. He deserves that slack just like anyone else does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

FYI - It was the *interviewer *that judged the past and present Holy Father.

That may be. One does have to make allowances for the fact that an interview is usually unrehearsed. You may say something now and later think that you could have said it differently.

We must keep in mind that sometimes interviews are conducted in a manner where the questions are submitted by the interviewer to the interviewee days before the interview is to take place. Do we know for certain that this is not the case in this interview?

 

[pnewton]

Do we know for certain that this is not the case in this interview?

Who knows. If I could be subjective, I would say it doesn’t have the right feel for the Archbishop having prior knowledge of all the questions. In any case, I think a preference for the benefit of the doubt is in order.

 

[JReducation]

We must keep in mind that sometimes interviews are conducted in a manner where the questions are submitted by the interviewer to the interviewee days before the interview is to take place. Do we know for certain that this is not the case in this interview?

I have seen samples of Bishop Fellay’s writing. These answers are not written in his style. They sound as if they are live and later edited such as when you interview, you record and later you edit your recording. Bishop Fellay’s writing is very formal. These answers are too casual.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF