Bishop Fellay: SSPX Seeks Return to the Past

[Ultima_Ratio]

I don’t know Bishop Fellay personally, as some on this thread seem to know him. Therefore, I can’t get into his mind and say that he obeys or disobeys at his convenience. I can only pray that practices what Franciscans call a “Loving Obedience.” For those who may not know what that is, our holy Father Francis taught us that a “loving obedience” is one where one submits to the wishes of authority, not because authority is always right or even because authority has a better idea, but because one acknowledges the need of the soul to be disciplined. Obeying, when one disagrees, is a moment of grace for the soul. The soul opens itself up to the possibilities of the Holy Spirit, knowing that God can make all things better when we surrender our desire to control and accept ourselves as the least of God’s creatures.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Everything you said is correct. However, obedience is a moral virtue. Moral virtues are a balance between to extremes: namely excess and defect. A moral virtue can be violated in either way - either by not obeying when we should, or by obeying when we should not.

The highest virtues are the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. The lower virtues are meant to serve the higher.

Now, the situation we have today is that the lower virtue of obedience is being used to undermine, and sometimes even destroy, the supernatural virtue of Faith. In such circumstances, it would be a sin to obey. On the contrary, one has the duty to do what they can to protect the faith in such abnormal circumstances…

Just as it would be a sin against the supernatural virtue of Charity to obey a command in which a person would be tempted to fall into a sin in the area of morality, so too it would be a sin against faith to obey a command in which a person risked losing their faith, or risked damaging their faith. Let us never forget that the lower virtues are at the service of the higher.

Now, it is common for the disobedient to whine about the “disobedience” of the SSPX; but in reality, how few times has the SSPX disobeyed the Pope? Very few compared to the examples we hear almost daily from the other Bishops of the world. And the reason for the few examples of “disobedience” on the part of the SSPX Bishops was in order to protect the Mass and the faith.

If it wasn’t for the SSPX, the Traditional Mass would be gone. Even though, as the Pope admitted a few years ago, the old Mass “was never abrogated”, everyone was led to believe that it was. They were all led to believe that the old Mass had been replaced by the New. In reality, it was all an illusion (as the Traditional Catholics always claimed), since the Pope never forbade the old Mass, but only published a new one.

Let’s end with a case of false obedience. Consider how many if Hitler’s soldiers obey his commands by killing Jews and non-Jews in the concentration camps. Are these soldiers to be praised for their obedience? After all, there were probably some who thought it was a bad idea, yet they obeyed anyway and followed the commands. Was this a case of herioc obedience, since they obeyed when they did not want to - when they personally thought the command was bad?

On the contrary, what would we say if some of the soldiers took measures to stop the killing? Would we condemn these disobedient soldiers for their “disobedience”? Or would we praise them? One who understand the virtue of obedience would realize that obeying when we should not is not a virtue at all - but rather contrary to the virtue of obedience.

In the end the same will be true with the SSPX. They saved the Mass, and are preserving the true faith, which has been watered down to the point of near extinction. The SSPX is surely not getting any reward today. They are hated by just about all today, but I’m sure they will be rewarded in the next life. “Blessed are you when you are persecuted for justice sake”.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=justinwu1992;5877208]Hello, okay, I have been reading this thread for the whole morning now, and I’ve learnt so much from you guys, thanx. I didn’t intend to step in the discussion, just a little question here:

I still don’t get it, how would, for example, a Taoist (yes, I am from the “Far East”, and no, there aren’t many Taoist around nowadays, just for example) who has never heard of Catholicism, fall into the above categories of “unbelievers”?

For a Taoist, first of all he’s not an Atheist, nor is a deist who denies that God (or gods) revealed a religion, for him that religion is Taoism. He’s not an infidels who “refuse to be baptized” since he doesn’t know what Baptism is. Nor is he a heretic, schismastic, apostate nor a materialist.

Not just Taoists, just for example, also Muslims, Buddhists and many other religious, if they have never heard of, or completely heard of Catholicism, are they to be counted as “unbelievers”? So they committed the “greatest sin”?

What about those religious leaders at Assis? Were they all aware fully of the teaching of the Church? Look at the Indian chef, he didn’t seem to know all that much about Catholicism and the Revelation of God, that he would “refuse to be baptized”.

I am from Asia, and here are lots of “unbelievers”, as many people don’t really know who Jesus is, and are not baptized as a Roman Catholic. According the Vatican II, they are to be evangelized, not condemned, for if someone who doesn’t know Christ for his whole life not because of his own fault, he’s not cut off from Salvation.

I would like to know how the traditionalists regard this?

I, too, have been following this thread & have wanted to discuss the points you’re questioning…so, to you, a big THANK YOU. I’ve read so many different things that apply to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or Outside the Church there is no salvation”." & have not been as satisfied with any of today’s answers.

I was born in 1941, & attended Catholic school during the time that Father Leonard Feeney was standing on stree corners & preaching EENS. Though some consider him a saint, the Church did not. In fact, he was excommunicated. Perhaps this has something to do with my fear of the teachings of the religious order called Slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which he founded after he left the Jesuits in the late '40’s.

As far as I’m concerned Vat. II further muddied the waters with the following ambiguous teaching, which aimed at not offending either Catholic or Protestant. As a result it just confused the issue.

[SIGN]The use of this expression (EENS), which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[/SIGN]

So…having looked for an explanation re. EENS for 60+ years, I’ve gone back to the one that a Sacred Heart nun taught when I was in the 4th grade. I remember it so well, probably because one side of my family were Methodist & they were good people. As a child, I could not imagine this Grandfather & Grandmother going to hell because they weren’t Catholic.

The nun, as an example, used the Native Americans as they were when the missionairies first came to our land. These people had never heard the name Jesus spoken, they knew nothing of the Trinity or the Blessed Virgin or the Catholic Church. They knew nothing of Baptism, of the Crucifixion, etc.

Yet they realized there existed a Supreme Being who created them & called him the by different names according to tribal affiliation.

They had a deep desire to please this God, offered sacrifices to Him as did the Jews in the old testament. They **desired **to live good lives.

Would God punish them for all eternity? The nun asked & answered her own question…NO. They, if they follow the Laws that ‘are written on the hearts of mankind’ & have a desire to follow their Creator’s will, but die without formal Baptism can be saved. “Their explicit desire, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).

Sometimes the simpler explanations are just TRUE.

 

[pnewton]

According the Vatican II, they are to be evangelized, not condemned, for if someone who doesn’t know Christ for his whole life not because of his own fault, he’s not cut off from Salvation.

Let me comment just on this one part. Yes, they are to be evangelized. Spreading the Gospel is always the number one job of the Church. Second, no they are not to be condemned as pronouncing judgement on the final salvation of others has always belonged to God alone. In the history of the Church, many have been declared Saints, none have been declared in Hell. There are those who have taken the more extreme interpretation that since a possiblity exist that there will be those saved, through the Church, that have no visible connection with the Church (i.e., are not members) that belonging to the Catholic Church is not important. Nothing could be farther from the truth or more dangerous.

Those other religious leaders that you mentioned may very well be lost and without hope. Those that fully understand the Gospel and reject it will be lost. No doubt. This is why we best be cautious about ecumenism. It can be a tool for spreading the Gospel, but must be used wisely.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I still don’t get it, how would, for example, a Taoist (yes, I am from the “Far East”, and no, there aren’t many Taoist around nowadays, just for example) who has never heard of Catholicism, fall into the above categories of “unbelievers”?

There are two categories of unbelievers: There are those who reject Jesus, and those who have never heard of Him through no fault of their own. Those in the first category are guilty of the sin of unbelief; those in the second category have no guilt as a result of their unbelief. They may be guilty of sin in other areas, but not due to their unbelief. But, since neither of the two groups believe, they both fall into the category of “unbeliever”.

I am from Asia, and here are lots of “unbelievers”, as many people don’t really know who Jesus is, and are not baptized as a Roman Catholic.

I’ll try to answer from the level of the possible “exception”. You’ve probably already read about the “rule” (that a person must belong explicitly to the Church), now here’s the possible exception.

The first thing to keep in mind is that man is born into this world separated from God. Have you ever considered all of the sin, suffering, and disorder in the world around us? All this mess that we see is the visible evidence of original sin. All these horrible effects flow from the first sin of man.

But there is also an invisible effect of original sin that we cannot see with our eyes. The invisible effect is just as real as the visible effect, even though we can’t see it. The invisible effect of original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace in the soul.

Sanctifying grace is the very life of God that he shares with man. It is the supernatural life of God infused into the soul of man. When man possesses this “eternal life” of God within him, he becomes, as the Bible says, a *“partaker of the Divine nature”, *a *“temple of the Holy Ghost”, *and an “adopted” child of God. This supernatural life transforms the soul of man and raises him up to a supernatural union with God. This supernatural union is not visible to the eyes, but it is a reality none-the-less; and it is this reality of a supernatural union of man’s soul with God that saves.

A man can be extremely nice, generous,helpful, friendly, and have a smile from ear to ear; but if he does not possess sanctifying grace in his soul, he will not be saved. It is as simple as that. The loss of sanctifying grace is the invisible effect of original sin, and it is much worse than the visible effects.

Now, by dying for our sins, Jesus satisfied the justice of God and once again made it possible for man to obtain this state of grace. The “visible effects” (suffering, etc.) remain, and are now a means for us to prove our faithfulness to God and thereby to grow closer to Him; but the invisible effect can now be restored.

The normal way to bring grace back into the soul of man - the way Jesus Himself instituted - is by receiving baptism and becoming a member of the Catholic Church. Baptism is how this grace is communicated to the soul; remaining in the Church is how it is preserved.

But what about those who have never heard of the Catholic Church? That is the question you are wondering about. Here’s the answer…

The Church teaches that it may be possible for such people to be saved. This is even discussed by St. Thomas Aquinas, who generally recognized as the greatest theologian the Church has ever had (certainly no Liberal).

The first requirement to receive grace is supernatural faith. Supernatural faith requires explicit knowledge of certain things that we cannot arrive at with our natural reason. That is why it is called “supernatural” faith. It is not enough to believe in a God, since we can know there is a God by our natural reason alone. Most theologians hold that supernatural faith requires assent to four specific teachings: 1.) That there is a God; 2.) That he rewards the good and punishes the evil; 3.) That God is a Trinity; 4.), and the Incarnation. The last two are supernatural truths that we cannot arrive out without divine revelation.

If someone believes those four things, and if they don’t knowingly reject other revealed truths, they have explicit faith.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Now, there is another kind of faith known as *implicit *faith. Implicit faith is in those who are properly disposed to believe, but do not yet believe because the truths have not been made known to them. Since they would believe if the truths were revealed to them, they are said to have “implicit faith”. Obviously, only God knows who such people are.

Now, the teaching of St. Thomas is that if a person has implicit faith, God will reveal the truth to him in one way or another. Either by sending a missionary to him, or possibly an angel, or if nothing else God will reveal the truths to the person interiorly. If the person assented to the truths, he would then have explicit faith.

Once he has explicit faith, he could receive the state of grace by having perfect contrition for his sins, combined with a perfect act of charity (charity means love of God). “Perfect contrition” is a sorrow for our sins because they have offended God who is so good. Not because we are scared of going to hell, or some temporal reason, but for the express reason that we have offended such a good God.

If we have 1.) supernatural faith, combined with 2.) perfect contrition, then a supernatural act of charity (love of God) can infuse grace into the soul (like baptism does). In this way, it is possible for a person such as you have described to be saved.

That is a detailed explanation of the “exception” to the rule. Has anyone ever actually been saved this way? Maybe, maybe not. God alone knows. But it is the common belief that salvation by this means could be possible.

The “normal way” for the people you described to be saved is for missionaries to go out and convert them. That is what Jesus intended when He told His apostles to go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature -* “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned”.* This missionary activity of the Church is what converted almost the entire world, and it is the normal means for converting the unbelievers (meaning those who have never heard the truth).

(For the Catholics reading this who may be wondering, the *baptism of desire * in the above scenario would have been “implicit” baptism of desire contained within the supernatural act of charity.)

 

[peary]

I don’t know if Bishop Fellay seeks a return to the past, but it probably would have been better if the Church as a whole would have attentively followed what Vatican II wanted with regard to the Mass. As it stands now, it has taken the Church over forty years to begin to implement what Vatican II had in mind. In many ways, catering to the ‘progressives’ in the Church has been a waste of time, and we have already lost two generations of Catholics in passing down the true Faith to them.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

In many ways, catering to the ‘progressives’ in the Church has been a waste of time, and we have already lost two generations of Catholics in passing down the true Faith to them.

I always think of the story in the Bible that took place after the resurrection, when Peter and the others had been fishing all night. Jesus appeared to them and said “have you caught anything”. They said “nothing”. Jesus then said “cast your net on the right side of the boat”, and they caught so man fish their nets were about to break.

During the past 50 years of spiritual darkness (night), the Church has been fishing on the left side of the boat, and has caught nothing. The Church needs to shake the dust off its feet with respect to the whiny Liberals and cast its net on the right side of the boat. Then it will have a great catch.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know if Bishop Fellay seeks a return to the past, but it probably would have been better if the Church as a whole would have attentively followed what Vatican II wanted with regard to the Mass. As it stands now, it has taken the Church over forty years to begin to implement what Vatican II had in mind. In many ways, catering to the ‘progressives’ in the Church has been a waste of time, and we have already lost two generations of Catholics in passing down the true Faith to them.

We have not lost them. They are part of our Church. That being said, I saw something that the Franciscans of the Eternal Word were saying. It was very interesting. They were pointing to this whole idea of returning to past. The friars were saying that the idea is not to return to the past, but to look at the past and learn what we need so that we can move toward the future. They gave a wonderful example of their own religious community. They explained how when Mother Angelica encouraged their first friars to found the Franciscan Missioanries of the Eternal Word she asked them to go to the Capuchin Franciscans to get grounded in the Franciscan tradition.

They looked at the tradition. They looked at St. Francis of Assisi. The looked a tthe Church through Franciscan eyes and the Franciscan vision, which was almost 800 years old at the time. When they had clearly understood the Franciscan truths and the truths of the Church, they were able to move forward and found a branch of the Francisan Order that uses very modern means and methods of evangelization. Thus, they do what Francis did 800 years ago, but they use very modern means to do it and they move thier own brothers to look forward toward the direction that the Church wants us to go.

I thought this was an excellent example of how one looks to the past, but does not live in the past.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[CradleCath]

I always think of the story in the Bible that took place after the resurrection, when Peter and the others had been fishing all night. Jesus appeared to them and said “have you caught anything”. They said “nothing”. Jesus then said “cast your net on the right side of the boat”, and they caught so man fish their nets were about to break.

During the past 50 years of spiritual darkness (night), the Church has been fishing on the left side of the boat, and has caught nothing. The Church needs to shake the dust off its feet with respect to the whiny Liberals and cast its net on the right side of the boat. Then it will have a great catch.

Very good answer. I think that God has already directed us away from the left side & we’re beginning to sail to the right. The very election of Pope Benedict proves this to me. The college of cardinals knew his stance re. the Mass, the blending of the clergy & laity, the ordination of homosexuals & abortion. I almost want to say they elected him "anyway". **Think about the changes we’ve seen in just these 4 short years. **Considering the size of the hierarchy & the Church…the slowness with which it has moved in the past, this could be called a MIRACLE in & of itself. Maybe we could credit it to the intercession of Pope John Paul II??

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know if Bishop Fellay seeks a return to the past, but it probably would have been better if the Church as a whole would have attentively followed what Vatican II wanted with regard to the Mass. As it stands now, it has taken the Church over forty years to begin to implement what Vatican II had in mind. In many ways, catering to the ‘progressives’ in the Church has been a waste of time, and we have already lost two generations of Catholics in passing down the true Faith to them.

Had John XXIII, the Pope who initiated Vatican II, lived, it is highly doubtful he would even allow a small amount of vernacular in the Mass.

The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every
merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is
altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be
noble, majestic, and non-vernacular. --Pope John XXIII, Veterum
Sapientia, February 22, 1962 (just eight months before the opening of
Vatican II), chap. 13

That said, it probably wouldn’t do in Bishop Fellay’s interest to deviate much from Vatican II’s signed documents.