54 Answers from Bishop Fellay

[TMC]

I would be more inclined to agree with your view if SSPX adopted more progressive views.

Vatican I and Vatican II were very different councils, and convened for very different purposes. The dcotrine of papal infallibility and primacy had already been used in the past, and was certainly well known. It had been a subject of controversy for 900 years at least, among the Greeks.

In contrast, Vatican II was largely novel, some of it quite so, such as Lumen Gentium.

The disareement between SSPX and the Vatican is fundamentally different, because the case of SSPX rests on no less authority than Trent. Moreover, Vatican II has been markedly difficult to define as a council, and its texts continue to generate debate as to proper meaning and construction, now almost 50 years on. This does not even get into the morass of whether Vatican II was “implemente” properly.

SSPX is in a class by itself, which is why it has been treated differently. Like you, I pray the work of both sides continues, and that Rome deals with SSPX with at least the same clemency as has recently been shown to old enemies like Muslims and Lutherans.

I don’t get the basis of the distinction you draw. Why is separating oneself by dissenting in a “conservative” direction better than dissenting in a “progressive” manner? Vatican I and Vatican II each promulgated teachings that were expositions and further explanations of the existing teaching of the Church. In both cases, a group came to believe that the Council’s teaching was new and inconsistent with the deposit of faith. The groups are identical in that regard – its not that the Old Catholics were advocating for some change that didn’t happen, they view Vatican I as a change just as SSPX views Vatican II as a change. Just like the SSPX, the Old Catholics believe that Trent and the earlier councils are on their side. Its also worth pointing out that the Old Catholics did not immediately move to start progressive policies - their policies drifted further from the Church over time, in their case in a progressive direction. If SSPX remains separated for 140 years (as Old Catholics have been) their policies will likely drift further from the Church, too.

All cases necessarily have their individual quirks, but I see the SSPX as being in the exact same category as the Old Catholics. Each truly believe they are right, each believes Tradition is on their side and each is apparently willing to risk schism over their beliefs. The Church was unable to convince the Old Catholics they were wrong and bring them back in the fold. We can hope that the Church will be able to do better with SSPX. But true reconciliation will require SSPX to admit that Vatican II’s teachings are authoritative, which is something they have thus far refused to do.

 

[laszlo]

All cases necessarily have their individual quirks, but I see the SSPX as being in the exact same category as the Old Catholics. Each truly believe they are right, each believes Tradition is on their side and each is apparently willing to risk schism over their beliefs. The Church was unable to convince the Old Catholics they were wrong and bring them back in the fold. We can hope that the Church will be able to do better with SSPX. But true reconciliation will require SSPX to admit that Vatican II’s teachings are authoritative, which is something they have thus far refused to do.

The Church can’t. The grace of Our Lord can.

 

[Warrenton]

Vatican I and Vatican II each promulgated teachings that were expositions and further explanations of the existing teaching of the Church.

Not necessarilly. The talks that are taking place with the Orthodox do not require them to admit that everything Rome has done since 1050 is authoritative. There are many ways of reconciling separation.

If the Great Schism has proved anything, it is that insisting on authoritative doctrine beyond the point of separation leads to centuries of division. Cooperation, tolerance, and a commitment always to explore avenues of closer communion are the way of the future.

 

[Warrenton]

The Church can’t. The grace of Our Lord can.

I’m more optimistic than that. I think the Church can convince even long separated churches and communities back into the fold (with grace of course!!).

To do so, it needs a different approach, which it seems willing to consider. Granting more liberty of conscience in certain things, especially what it has defined as “discipline” matters, seems to offer much promise. If the Church can be moving toward greater community with Anglicans, Lutherans, and oriental Churches, then surely it can do the same with SSPX.

 

[TMC]

As I said, Vatican II went much farther than any other council that I am aware of in breaking with the past, other perhaps than the council of Jerusalem. It is at best difficult to reconcile the ecumenical posture taken in Lumen Gentium with previous teaching. Similarly, it difficult to place the changes that were made to the mass and other sacraments in the context of any previous council or teaching. Simply put, there is no “Clown Mass” synod that Vatican II can point to as being in context with.

The teaching that came out of Vatican I drew on arguments that had been advanced since at least the 900s.

Again, one searches with difficulty to find a historical precedent for much of what Vatican II implemented

We can’t really argue about what may or may not happen in the future. If we do, SSPX will probably say to us that the sex scandals will get even worse, the performance of the mass will become so heterodox that it will be invalid, and so forth.

Not necessarilly. The talks that are taking place with the Orthodox do not require them to admit that everything Rome has done since 1050 is authoritative. There are many ways of reconciling separation.

If the Great Schism has proved anything, it is that insisting on authoritative doctrine beyond the point of separation leads to centuries of division. Cooperation, tolerance, and a commitment always to explore avenues of closer communion are the way of the future.

Well, I disagree that the teachings of Vatican II represent a break with Catholic Tradition. And, as I have said, the Old Catholics just as firmly believed that Vatican I was a break with Catholic Tradition. The Church has repeatedly said that SSPX must admit the authority of Vatican II before true reconciliation can happen. I take the Church at her word on that, and I also agree that I don’t see any other way that reconciliation can happen. If the SSPX is seeking (like the Orthodox) to have the Church agree that they are a valid but separate Catholic rite, then maybe they would not need to do so. But if the SSPX want to be fully reintegrated into the Latin Rite of the Church, they will need to agree that all of the Church’s ecumencial councils are valid and authoritative.

 

[dmorgan]

Not necessarilly. The talks that are taking place with the Orthodox do not require them to admit that everything Rome has done since 1050 is authoritative. There are many ways of reconciling separation.

If the Great Schism has proved anything, it is that insisting on authoritative doctrine beyond the point of separation leads to centuries of division. Cooperation, tolerance, and a commitment always to explore avenues of closer communion are the way of the future.

From the 2nd Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy; Chapter four

“[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.”

IMHO we have cooperated, tolerated and explored too much already.

From Ecclesiastes; Chapter 1

"[10] Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.

Many times the answers for today are found in the answers from the past. Our pride often blinds us to think that since we are “SO modern” we have the proper answers. Those “OLD answers” cannot be correct for today. Or can they?

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your cogent explanation. I re-read it a couple of times, and as so often is the case, think the difference in our statements is less a result of difference in doctrine than in where we chose to start the inquiry and how we place things in order of importance.

I strongly agree with you that a hallmark of Catholicism is unity. This issue, to my thinking, is what sets SSPX apart from all other, how shall we put it? “dissidents.”

Everyone else pretty much wants to be separate, but they don’t.

If the Church were to declare them in schism, excommunicate them or whatever, what the Church would lose would be a claim to justice.

Any Catholic would be hard pressed to find docrinal fault with the basic proposition of SSPX, which is basically “what was right yesterday is right today.”

Since Vatican II, the Church has witnessed all manner of abuses, and treated them, when it has even addressed them, leniently. It has treated the Orthodox leniently, it has permitted Catholics to mingle in Protestant services, and in general, shown a marked clemency to many individuals who come from unauthorized faith traditions (eg, Charismatics) or from traditions that actively defy the Roman claims to Catholic primacy.

A basic premise of justice is equal treatment. For Rome to adopt a more punitive stance toward the SSPX, which is less culpapble than other groups with more evident culpability in terms of disunity, would offend justice.

At worst, per Vatican II, SSPX are separated brothers. There is far less distance between SSPX and Rome than Constantinople or Moscow and Rome.

An argument over doctrine among Catholics is in essence different than any argument with non-Catholics and Catholics. In justice, both sides need to keep working.

I don’t think that the Apostolic See and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith have less mercy for the SSPX than they do toward non-Catholics. I think they expect more of them, because they are Catholics.

I have read statements made by Pope Benedict XVI where he says that they must accept his primacy and all that it involves. He has also said that they must accept the authority of Vatican II. This is not negotiable. They must accept the magisterium of John Paul II and his own. This is not negotiable.

He is not saying that the Church is unwilling to answer questions and to clarify misunderstanding. The Church is and that’s why she has assigned her best theologians to this dialogue.

However, there is a common denominator between some of the language of the SSPX and that of some left wing groups. That denominator is “We’re right and the Church is wrong.” That’s the message that Pope Benedict will not yield to. I believe that Bishop Fellay is making an indirect reference to the SSPX’s position that it will not drop this line of thinking. I could be wrong, but that’s my reading of the whole thing.

We have to pray that the SSPX will back down and assent to what the Holy Father wants, while they continue to ask questions for clarifications. The clarifications are important and helpful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

However, there is a common denominator between some of the language of the SSPX and that of some left wing groups. That denominator is “We’re right and the Church is wrong.” That’s the message that Pope Benedict will not yield to. I believe that Bishop Fellay is making an indirect reference to the SSPX’s position that it will not drop this line of thinking. I could be wrong, but that’s my reading of the whole thing.

Maybe we should give them more time. If I remember correctly, one of the Vatican conditions when they (SSPX) asked for removal of the excommunications was that they (SSPX) tone down the rhetoric against the Pope and the Vatican. I don’t know if they did so on the website but it sounds like for the most part, things are improving in that area.

 

[JReducation]

Maybe we should give them more time. If I remember correctly, one of the Vatican conditions when they (SSPX) asked for removal of the excommunications was that they (SSPX) tone down the rhetoric against the Pope and the Vatican. I don’t know if they did so on the website but it sounds like for the most part, things are improving in that area.

I am certainly in agreement that they need more time and it’s a good idea to give them more time. However, there is another thread in the Catholic News Forum on this same subject. According that report, Bishop Fellay has said that there is no way that they will accept the authority of Vatican II.

There could be a quote out of context here. The media could be trying to stir the pot. Or he did say this. We don’t know, because we were not there. That’s why I personally wish that Bishop Fellay would not grant these interviews. My preference is that they have their dialogue and when they’re finished, they share the report with the world. This was the original plan. I’m not sure how we got to this periodic reporting. It’s not such a good idea, espcially, because you only get Bishop Fellay’s comments. There is an entire commission of theologians, there is Cardinal Levada, the Prefect for the Congregation for the Faith and none of them are ever in the news speaking about these talks.

It is not impossible that Bishop Fellay may have one perspective and the other participants have another. The faithful should hear from both sides as to the progress or from no one until they finish. As far as I understood it, they didn’t expect to finish for two-years.

We should honker down and wait. In the end, we will all have to do whatever the Holy Father says. The commission will write its report. Cardinal Levada will read it and make his recommendations to the pope, because that’s his job. Usually, popes do not disregard their Prefects. The pope will then tell us what’s what. We will simply have to say, “Yes Sir.” and go on with our lives. We’re not going to leave the Church, because the pope does not yield. In the end, he remains the man at the top and the final authority. I have a funny feeling that Pope Benedict has no qualms about sticking to his guns. Look at the Assisi gathering. There have been all kinds of comments and he has not responded to any of them. The last I heard, he had given the bishop of Assisi and the Franciscans their marching orders.

I believe that he’s a very strong man. He dialogues on his terms and he also ignores. He said something, not long ago, that really caught my attention. “If you’re not happy, blame the cardinals. They elected me.” I read it and went, “Zinger!!!”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I am certainly in agreement that they need more time and it’s a good idea to give them more time. However, there is another thread in the Catholic News Forum on this same subject. According that report, Bishop Fellay has said that there is no way that they will accept the authority of Vatican II.

There could be a quote out of context here.

Tough to say. To me it looks like he likes to play semantics and/or he likes to resort to some clever logic in explaining his position. Or he just likes to play the “gotcha” game.

“… The moment you recognize the principle that the Church cannot change, if you want to have Vatican II accepted, you are obliged to say that Vatican II did not change anything either. That is why they do not admit that they find any contradiction between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium, but they are nevertheless at a loss to explain the nature of the change which quite evidently has taken place.”

 

[JReducation]

Tough to say. To me it looks like he likes to play semantics and/or he likes to resort to some clever logic in explaining his position. Or he just likes to play the “gotcha” game.

I’m reading your second quote and thinking to myself that the good bishop may like to play word games. It keeps people on their toes, I guess.

He has to be very careful, because he’s up against two master theologians. Bishop Fellay may be a very good man and a very educated man, but we know that he’s not a theologian. He’s up against the head of the Opus Dei, whom I understand is second only to Joseph Ratzinger in semantics and Joseph Ratzinger himself.

But I highly doubt that he uses these strategies when he is responding to their postulations. It would not be prudent to do so.

My guess is that this is more for the benefit of the press, if he’s being quoted correctly. There is alwasy that IF.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

He has to be very careful, because he’s up against two master theologians. Bishop Fellay may be a very good man and a very educated man, but we know that he’s not a theologian. He’s up against the head of the Opus Dei, whom I understand is second only to Joseph Ratzinger in semantics and Joseph Ratzinger himself.

Therein lies the problem. It seems like the whole thing has turned into a nasty debate (war of words) neither side wants to back away from. And the more differences, even semantic ones, that can be turned up, the better it seems. Something’s not right here. There are many non-SSPXers who feel the same way about Vatican II (or what they see as Vatican II) as Bishop Fellay and many people who feel there should be women priests inter alia yet they’re in full communion with the Church. OTOH, Bishop Fellay is a bishop and will be held to higher standards.

 

[maurin]

Br Jr and ProVobis,

Unless I am missing something–which is quite possible!–I’m not so sure your facts are correct regarding who’s actually doing the speaking at the talks. For instance, the Pope is not present for them, rather his aforementioned delegates. While Bishop Fellay publicly speaks for the Society, the Society’s Theologians are the speakers at the meetings.

But perhaps I’m missing something.

 

[maurin]

Well, I disagree that the teachings of Vatican II represent a break with Catholic Tradition. And, as I have said, the Old Catholics just as firmly believed that Vatican I was a break with Catholic Tradition. The Church has repeatedly said that SSPX must admit the authority of Vatican II before true reconciliation can happen. I take the Church at her word on that, and I also agree that I don’t see any other way that reconciliation can happen. If the SSPX is seeking (like the Orthodox) to have the Church agree that they are a valid but separate Catholic rite, then maybe they would not need to do so. But if the SSPX want to be fully reintegrated into the Latin Rite of the Church, they will need to agree that all of the Church’s ecumencial councils are valid and authoritative.

Are you saying that the Society rejects the Council? If not, disregard this response. If so, it is apparent that vyou do not know the Society.

“We accept what is true in the Council. We interpret in the light of Tradition that which is vague in its documents. We reject that which cannot be interpreted in the light of Tradition.” A paraphrase of both +Archbishop Lefebvre’s+ and Bishop Fellay’s oft-repeated words. Religious Liberty has been condemned by several Popes prior to the 60’s. Subsistit in is a novelty which springs from this concept.

 

[PaulinVA]

Therein lies the problem. It seems like the whole thing has turned into a nasty debate neither side wants to back away from. And the more differences, even semantic ones, that can be turned up, the better it seems. Something’s not right here. There are many non-SSPXers who feel the same way about Vatican II (or what they see as Vatican II) as Bishop Fellay and many people who feel there should be women priests inter alia yet they’re in full communion with the Church.

This is true. I don’t care how we got here - we are at a very low point right now in the Church. People’s unbelief is a real problem. When combined with the abuse scandals, it’s amazing any young people go to Mass at all.

So, SSPX says it’s Vatican II. Others say the Church was weak and was greatly influenced by the 60s permissiveness. There are a million theories.

The question is whether there is a desire to move forward, in the sense of using the rich Tradition of the Church to get back on track.

I think that a people can be scattered when you take their language away, so I am all for bringing back latin. But, I don’t think a retreat to the early sixties is the answer, because it won’t fly with the majority of the people.

If the Vatican said that starting with this Advent, the Latin Mass would be the only Mass (instead of just changing the missal), I would be fine with that. No problem at all. However, a lot of people would see that as a tremendous step backward. You have to deal with those people. You can’t get around them.

So, if the talks completed with SSPX agreeing with Vatican II and the TLM becomes more widespread, great, but it doesn’t address the problem. If the SSPX gets Rome to agree to some "clarifications’ about Vatican II, great, whatever. But, that doesn’t help the overall problems with the Church.

That is what is disappointing - this is not about revival or getting on track or reversing the problems wrought on the Church in the past 40 years. It’s about one group of priests having their suspensions lifted. That’s important to them, and the people they serve, but I don’t see how that will have an effect on the overall Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

“We accept what is true in the Council. We interpret in the light of Tradition that which is vague in its documents. We reject that which cannot be interpreted in the light of Tradition.” A paraphrase of both +Archbishop Lefebvre’s+ and Bishop Fellay’s oft-repeated words. Religious Liberty has been condemned by several Popes prior to the 60’s. Subsistit in is a novelty which springs from this concept.

Maurin, not to bait you, but how is this different from the cafeteria Catholic who believes what they believe and nothing more?

To me, the statement you quoted is a condemnation of the speaker. I have a hard time getting around that. I’ve been taught in my 50 plus years that if I conform myself to Christ, through His Church, that I will have eternal life. This statement says that, either I don’t have to totally conform myself, or that the Church will lead me down the road to perdition.

Neither of those alternatives is possible, is it?

 

[malphono]

There are many non-SSPXers who feel the same way about Vatican II (or what they see as Vatican II) as Bishop Fellay and many people who feel there should be women priests inter alia yet they’re in full communion with the Church. OTOH, Bishop Fellay is a bishop and will be held to higher standards.

FWLIW, I tend to think that those in the first group simply keep their mouths shut (publicly, at least) about their real feelings of the Council, and so they sort of slip under the radar. They don’t teach or preach against it, so it’s really a “no-harm-no-foul” situation.

Now, I find the second group more interesting. They’re of the “in your face” school, and shout their priestess mantra and the rest of their anti-traditional (for lack of a better word off-hand) agenda as loudly and publicly as they can. No way do they slip under the radar, but how often do they officially get called on the carpet?

 

[maurin]

Maurin, not to bait you, but how is this different from the cafeteria Catholic who believes what they believe and nothing more?

To me, the statement you quoted is a condemnation of the speaker. I have a hard time getting around that. I’ve been taught in my 50 plus years that if I conform myself to Christ, through His Church, that I will have eternal life. This statement says that, either I don’t have to totally conform myself, or that the Church will lead me down the road to perdition.

Neither of those alternatives is possible, is it?

I’m not baited, so no worries there, paulinva.

The reason you find it difficult “getting around that”, I believe, is that you believe that everything the Pope says is true. The sedevacantists believe that. So when they see the Pope say or do something th,at isn’t true, they reach a wrong and terrible conclusion.

Not everything the Pope, or a Pope, says or does is true. He is a man–a man set apart from othee men to be sure!, but a man all the same. The only time we can be 100 percent certain is when he invokes infallibility. Most of the time we can be sure that almost 100 percent of what he says is true. Sometimes, maybe even rarely, we can see a Pope do something which we know is not right. Kissing a book which does not contain Holy Writ can be used as an example.

If in 1940 Religious Liberty was a condemned principle, but in 1970 it has become common teaching, well that is an idea that many people, myself included, have a very hard time getting around.

 

[PaulinVA]

Not everything the Pope, or a Pope, says or does is true. He is a man–a man set apart from other men to be sure!, but a man all the same. The only time we can be 100 percent certain is when he invokes infallibility. Most of the time we can be sure that almost 100 percent of what he says is true. Sometimes, maybe even rarely, we can see a Pope do something which we know is not right. Kissing a book which does not contain Holy Writ can be used as an example.

But isn’t deciding that the Pope is wrong a kind of selective believing? You decide what you want to take away, I decide what I want to take away, and at a certain point we are practicing different religions (or at least denominations). That is what is troubling to me.

 

[ProVobis]

If in 1940 Religious Liberty was a condemned principle, but in 1970 it has become common teaching, well that is an idea that many people, myself included, have a very hard time getting around.

But weren’t we all supposed to accept Vatican II in light of tradition as well? I think that’s an important element that seemed to have slipped into the cracks somehow.