54 Answers from Bishop Fellay

[maurin]

The bold is mine.

I don’t think that individuals would get a negative reaction from the Holy See if they choose to do this, as long as it is clear that this is their choice and as long as they do not teach their choice to other Catholics as the right choice.

The issue then becomes one of authority. To put it in our jargon, “Who’s in charge here?”

I believe that what the Holy See wants to see (no redundance intended) is an acceptance that it is in charge and whatever it teaches is authoritative and cannot be publicly refuted, even though individuals may say that they prefer to do it the way we always did it. I can’t believe that the Holy See would have a major problem with that. It when you try to tell people that the Holy See is wrong that they get slightly upset.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have to confess to you Brother that I laughed out loud when I read your wording!! In a very good way!!

That doesn’t mean that I absolutely agree with you, but there is much there that liked!

And it was short, frank and to the point! My kinda post. :thumbsup:

 

[ProVobis]

I respectfully disagree. While it may be true that there are large parts of the Council documents that the Society is OK with, the bottom line is that there are some important portions of the Council’s teaching that the SSPX rejects.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting their true position? AL himself signed the documents of Vatican II so there had to have been some level of assent with those documents. The Council was held in 1962-5. Did someone make a change to those documents since then or did some body decide the times have changed and the interpretation of Vatican II documents must be made adaptable to the present? It seems that the latter is more likely.

 

[Warrenton]

I really like the way that you worded this.

Thanks,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for such a kind post!

It really is amazing how much progress has been made in the past few years. If one reads what was written in the late 60’s and early 70’s about the direction of liturgy, and one considers the often painful process that Pope John Paul engaged in during the 1980s of trying to curb out of control innovations (I am thinking of the encyclical letter prohibiting the congregation from reciting the words of the minor elevation, which at least in my area, was common), the change for the better is amazing.

I am aware that some on the traditionalist side will balk, and point out altar girls, the permanent subdiaconate known as extraordinary ministry, and the like. However…

In 1960, it would have been impossible to be charismatic in the Catholic Church.

In 1980, it was (nearly) impossible to be Tridentine in the Catholic Church (unless you were in the United Kingdom, but even there it was getting hard to find a church).

In 2011, however, both are accepted. Both are reasonably available, and becoming more available. I think it is good.

I also think that the Pope knows, and SSPX know, that there are powerful arguments on both sides.

As to vernacular services, the Pope could point to the success of Protestant communities. After 500 years, there are lots of them. It does not do to say “well, they are all going to perdition,” if you are last person in the chapel.

Traditionalists could point to Islam, which has done quite well with one language. Obviously, people even lacking much schooling can be taught an ecclesiastical language sufficiently to follow divine services.

In light of this, plus the strong political opposition that the Church faces all over the world, I think it quite likely that cool heads will prevail, and that both sides will continue to work through their differences.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As to vernacular services, the Pope could point to the success of Protestant communities. After 500 years, there are lots of them. It does not do to say “well, they are all going to perdition,” if you are last person in the chapel.

Or to the Eastern Churches. While Eastern Churches don’t actually use vernacular in the past in the true sense of the word, their Liturgical languages have always been something that they can easily understand because their modern vernaculars developed from what is used as their Liturgical language. Greeks used Greek, Slavs used Church Slavonic, those in the middle east used Aramaic, etc. I guess if you speak Spanish, French or Italian, Latin wouldn’t be such a big deal. But what of those who speak Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Indonesian, etc?

Traditionalists could point to Islam, which has done quite well with one language. Obviously, people even lacking much schooling can be taught an ecclesiastical language sufficiently to follow divine services.

Or we can point to our own predecessors, the Jews, who eventually came out with the LXX.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that we’re getting caught on the less important at the expense of the more important issue.

The more important issue is that this is a no win situation. Be patient. Allow me to explain. If the SSPX succeeds in their pursuit, many who are outraged by them will be very unhappy and there will not be a peaceful solution.

If the Vatican tells the SSPX, “It’s our way or the highway” There will still be many people who will be outraged and there will not be a peaceful solution.

The issue here is that people are going to be hurt, seriously hurt no matter how this plays out, unless we out here, outside the Vatican, do our very best to mend the relations between us instead of fighting. Unity cannot be achieved by commanding it. It has to be achieved by love. Both sides have to show more kindness toward each other.

When there are points where both sides have to sacrifice, if there is great love, the sacrifice is easier. We cannot love an abstract concept. We must love real people, even when we disagree. Kindness is a duty owed to all men, even thieves on a cross.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF