Bishop Fellay: SSPX Seeks Return to the Past

[TMC]

This is in Catholic News via the automated feed, but I thought it might be more fruitfully discussed here. According to news reports, Bishop Fellay is saying that SSPX talks with the Church are aimed at “a return to the past.” He also says that the SSPX may increase its list of demanded reforms:

Our principle objections to the Council, such as religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality are well known. But other objections could be posed, such as the influence of modern philosophy, the liturgical novelties, the spirit of the world and its influence on the modern thought that holds sway in the Church.

blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/10/13/return-to-past-is-sspx-motto-for-doctrinal-talks-with-vatican/

As the article suggests, it seems to me that such a strategy is not a genuine attempt at reconciliation, but an attempt to delay real discussion by throwing up continuous roadblocks. Hopefully some SSPX leaders are more open to reconciliation than this.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I think you misunderstood him. The interviewer asked how long the discussion would last. He said he had no idea. He mentioned the few points of doctrine that would surely be disgussed, and then added that there could other points discussed as well.

The SSPX has been asking for these doctrinal discussions for years. They are not using them as a delay tactic, but as a means of clearing up the utter chaos and confusion resluting from the Vatican II documents.

Many people still don’t realize it, but it is very clear that God is using the SSPX to restore the Church. You can thank the SSPX for the Traditional Mass, since if it wasn’t for them it would have disapeared long ago; and if it wasn’t for them we wouldn’t have Summorum Pontificum.

The next accomplishment is that, through the efforts of the SSPX, the ambiguous documents of Vatican II, which have caused such confusion in the Church, will at last be clarified. It is very clear for those with eyes to see that God is using the SSPX to restore the Church.

Remember, St Athanasius was HATED in his day, just as the SSPX is today. He was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exile, and suffered an unjust excommunication by the Pope. The famous saying was “Athanasius against the word” because virtually everyone was against him.

In the end, however, he who held to what the Church had always taught, against virtually every other member of the hierarchy, was proven right and given the title Defender of the Faith.

The same will happen with Archbishop Lefebvre. He simply held to what the Church has always taugh during a time of almost universal apostasy.

 

[pnewton]

Fellay then indicated the SSPX could also contribute to dragging out these talks as much as possible. “The issues are vast,”

I was praying that this sort of posturing was not going to happen and that Fellay was ready to humbly approach these talks. I will still pray that he will have a change of heart and work towards normalization. I still believe the Holy Father has done the right thing by making overtures and attempting to heal this rift. However, until Fellay realizes that Pope Benedict is the pope, not he, and this translates into a proper subordination to his authority, there will be no regulariztion of this group.

 

[Cider]

This is in Catholic News via the automated feed, but I thought it might be more fruitfully discussed here. According to news reports, Bishop Fellay is saying that SSPX talks with the Church are aimed at “a return to the past.” He also says that the SSPX may increase its list of demanded reforms:

blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/10/13/return-to-past-is-sspx-motto-for-doctrinal-talks-with-vatican/

As the article suggests, it seems to me that such a strategy is not a genuine attempt at reconciliation, but an attempt to delay real discussion by throwing up continuous roadblocks. Hopefully some SSPX leaders are more open to reconciliation than this.

I think you may be experiencing wishful thinking. I haven’t seen much fruitful discussion on this forum with regards to the SSPX.

 

[RyanML]

I was praying that this sort of posturing was not going to happen and that Fellay was ready to humbly approach these talks. I will still pray that he will have a change of heart and work towards normalization. I still believe the Holy Father has done the right thing by making overtures and attempting to heal this rift. However, until Fellay realizes that Pope Benedict is the pope, not he, and this translates into a proper subordination to his authority, there will be no regulariztion of this group.

I am sure that Bishop Fellay realizes that Pope Benedict is the one holding the Keys. What would be the point of the discussions otherwise? But in his conscience, the good bishop can not see how various interpretations of Vatican II square with what the Church has always and everywhere taught and understandably seeks clarification. He mentions Pope Benedict’s teaching about a “hermeneutic of continutiy” and I think this is how we have to understand his position. If the documents of the Council can be interpreted and implemented in the light of the Church’s constant teaching then great, if not then they should be thrown out. And I don’t think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to show such continuity, where it exists. The teachings of the Church develope slowly and organically and so the Holy Father should easily be able to show the lack of contradiction.

 

[pnewton]

I am sure that Bishop Fellay realizes that Pope Benedict is the one holding the Keys. What would be the point of the discussions otherwise?

If he put into practice what he confesses with his lips, then why is Fellay adding issues to drag out negotiations. It is not the subordinate that dictates the terms of negotiations to his superior.

I note you think this posturing is in keeping with his conscience.

 

[truevaticanii]

Sometimes I wish I could have a talk with Fellay and the Pope… sort things out in a day with them as sort of the main in the middle between the two… just because I never know what they say to each other, but I have talked to many SSPX-ers and non-SSPX-ers alike who believe the same thing, they just word it differently and because they word their beliefs differently, they think they are in opposition… I know that there are some small parts to the arguments that truly are in opposition, but for the most part… at least most SSPXers think that VII teaches certain modernistic views that it truly does not.

 

[SemperFidelis]

It is not the subordinate that dictates the terms of negotiations to his superior.

It is also the superior who is required to clearly explain how a document doesn’t contradict Tradition when it is legitimately questioned by a subordinate. However, that answer never came and hence the superior failed in his mission (Archbishop Lefebvre’s dubia to Cardinal Ratzinger about Dignitatis Humanae.) This is precisely what Bishop Fellay is continuing today. This never would have happened had Cardinal Ratzinger effectively answered the doubts twenty years ago.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

It is also the superior who is required to clearly explain how a document doesn’t contradict Tradition when it is legitimately questioned by a subordinate. However, that answer never came and hence the superior failed in his mission (Archbishop Lefebvre’s dubia to Cardinal Ratzinger about Dignitatis Humanae.) This is precisely what Bishop Fellay is continuing today. This never would have happened had Cardinal Ratzinger effectively answered the doubts twenty years ago.

The reason he did not answer is revealed in his book Principles of Catholic Theology. Vatican II taught exactly what was condemned by the Church in numerous documents, including the Syllabus of errors compiled by Pius IX.

Ratzinger:

Cardinal Ratzinger: "If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus …

[F]irst in central Europe, conditioned by the situation, the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 [the time of the Masonic French Revolution] was still lacking.

In reality, the mentality that preceded the revolution [the Catholic mentality] still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities [thankfully]; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method …

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. … (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

This admission is very telling for anyone who has read the Church’s condemnations of Liberalism. Error does not become truth simply because the calendar reads a different date.

This is what the Vatican II peritus Yves Congar said about religious liberty as taugth by Vatican II.

**Yves Congar: "**It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.”

And it’s not just the Syllabus that Vatican II contradicts, but many magisterial documents. If anyone compares Quanta Cura with Dignitate humanae, they will see that the latter teaches as true precisely what the former condemns.

 

[Abenadar]

at least most SSPXers think that VII teaches certain modernistic views that it truly does not.

The same can be said for the majority of “post-concilliar” (Novus Ordo) Catholics…clergy and lay alike. That’s why there’s a crisis in the church.

I can’t wait until VII is clarified so that the endless, mindless, horrid “tinkering” on the part of the oh-so-hip-and-with-the-times clergy and layman can STOP.

 

[Abenadar]

I was praying that this sort of posturing was not going to happen and that Fellay was ready to humbly approach these talks.

Doesn’t seem like “posturing” to me so much as just being open about the fact that there’s a lot to talk about. Also, how do you know that +Fellay isn’t approaching these talks humbly? Your perception could be way off (perhaps mine is too ). Nevertheless, I’d prefer to err on the side of charity.

I will still pray that he will have a change of heart and work towards normalization.

Again, you don’t know his heart, so why pray that he have a change of heart? These last 20 years have been nothing but attempting to work toward normalization while simultaneously zealously and carefully guarding their lambs in a manner most other bishops of the world would do well to emulate.

I still believe the Holy Father has done the right thing by making overtures and attempting to heal this rift.

The overtures have been around a lot longer than there has been a Pope Benedict XVI.

However, until Fellay realizes that Pope Benedict is the pope, not he, and this translates into a proper subordination to his authority, there will be no regulariztion of this group.

Need I comment? Also, need I point out the subordination rendered by the SSPX bishops versus the “collegiality” rendered by the rest of the world’s bishops who are with the pope when he says what they want to hear, and are against him when not?

 

[JReducation]

There are three misconsceptions here. I don’t know if they are on the part of Bishop Fellay or us.

First misconception: The Holy Father is not going to be sitting at these talks. He has appointed the theologians whom he wants to be at these talks and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The leadership of the SSPX will not have direct access to the Holy Father unless he makes himself available. Most of their discussion is with the theologians, not the Holy Father. The Holy Father will be kept informed, but he will stand by is theologians. Why pick them if he does not trust them.

Second misconception: The agenda is made out by the Sacred Congregation, not by the theologians or the SSPX and it is dictated by the Holy Father. Nothing outside the agenda will be allowed into the discussion without the permission of the Congregation and the Apostolic See. The SSPX cannot walk into the room and add to the agenda. The Church doesn not operate this way.

Third misconcpetion: Pope Benedict has already written a clarification for the Council’s position on the condemnations made by Pius IX and X. He stands by that. He is not one to give up ground on theological territory, especially when we all have to admit that he is a far superior theologian than is Archbishop Fellay and the other members of the committee. They would have to prove him wrong. Will Pope Benedict even allow that discussion? I highly doubt it. He will repeat himself, but I really doubt that he will budge.

The best approach that the SSPX can take here is to follow the agenda that’s placed before them. Discuss the points. Reach a point of agreement, when there is room to compromise. When not given options, accept authority. They do much more good for the Church being regularized than in a chronic state of suspension.

Will the Holy See allow this discussion to go on for years? That’s another interesting question. I don’t think that anyone believes that it will all be settled over night. But years? I’m not so sure about this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Brother JR, this is why I like reading your posts. You take the facts and look at them objectively, without letting emotional attachments or personal opinions get in the way. I pray that God will help me to be even a tenth of the apologist you are for the Catholic Faith.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, this is why I like reading your posts. You take the facts and look at them objectively, without letting emotional attachments or personal opinions get in the way. I pray that God will help me to be even a tenth of the apologist you are for the Catholic Faith.

Thank you for the compliment. I’ve never considered myself an apologist, because I have only 12 credits in Systematic Theology on the graduate school level. The minimum requirement for a theology dregree. My doctorate is in Mystical Theology and I wrote it on DETACHMENT THEOLOGY AND MYSTICISM: A Comparative Approach to Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi’s Unity With the Divine.

I do believe that we have to leave our emotions out of the way on these issues. It helps us when we remain calm.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cluny]

There is no source more fraught with misinformation and disinformation about theological points than the secular media.

For them to say that SSPX wants to “return to the past” is grossly unfair and unjust–to say nothing about inaccurate.

 

[JReducation]

There is no source more fraught with misinformation and disinformation about theological points than the secular media.

For them to say that SSPX wants to “return to the past” is grossly unfair and unjust–to say nothing about inaccurate.

That’s why I said above that I hoped there is a misunderstanding here, either by Bishop Felay or us. I would not doubt it, if the secular media has misunderstood the Bishop. What a novel idea.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SemperFidelis]

Third misconcpetion: Pope Benedict has already written a clarification for the Council’s position on the condemnations made by Pius IX and X.

Could you please refer me to this? Thank you and God Bless.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The reason he did not answer is revealed in his book Principles of Catholic Theology. Vatican II taught exactly what was condemned by the Church in numerous documents, including the Syllabus of errors compiled by Pius IX.

This admission is very telling for anyone who has read the Church’s condemnations of Liberalism. Error does not become truth simply because the calendar reads a different date.

This is what the Vatican II peritus Yves Congar said about religious liberty as taugth by Vatican II.

**Yves Congar: "**It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.”

And it’s not just the Syllabus that Vatican II contradicts, but many magisterial documents. If anyone compares Quanta Cura with Dignitate humanae, they will see that the latter teaches as true precisely what the former condemns.

 

[CradleCath]

Need I comment? Also, need I point out the subordination rendered by the SSPX bishops versus the “collegiality” rendered by the rest of the world’s bishops who are with the pope when he says what they want to hear, and are against him when not?

So true. I wonder what Bishop Fellay thinks of Cardinal Roger Mahony, who issued a statement the other day calling the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) a champion of "the voiceless, the powerless and the most needy of our citizens."

hmmmmm. Who among the" voiceless, the powerless & the most needy" are more vulnerable than the unborn children? I for one can agree with** some **of the concerns that Bishop Fellay has.

I think that Pope Benedict is between a rock (SSPXers) & a hard place (Bishops whose liberal teachings cause scandal) He despartely needs our prayers.

 

[pnewton]

It is also the superior who is required to clearly explain how a document doesn’t contradict Tradition when it is legitimately questioned by a subordinate.

There is a difference between explaining and explaining to the point of convincing. There are some people who work for you that you can explain until you are blue in the face. It is always human nature that we will never agree on everything. “Clearly” means “to the point of convincing” to the SSPX. That is why all issues are claimed to be issues of conscience.

Fellay could easily submit totally to the Holy Father and still hold to his beliefs. There is nothing he holds that I am aware of that is heretical. It is not his conscience he wishes to satisfy. It is control. Why not just lay down ones arms and submit? Nothing would prevent him further battling for his beliefs on the battlefield of ideas.