Bishop Fellay's First interview since Saturday's big news

[603304529]

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/fellay-first-interview.html

Monday, January 26, 2009
Fellay: the first interview
"I am confident"
The Swiss daily Le Temps published today the first interview granted to journalist Patricia Briel by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), after the remission of excommunications made public last Saturday.

The full text:

- Do you condemn the negationist declarations of Bishop Williamson?

- [Fellay:] It does not belong to me to condemn them. I do not have the competence for his. But I deplore that a Bishop may have given the impression of involving the Fraternity with a view that is not ours.

- According to observers, the Pope's decision could create divisions within the Fraternity. All the faithful and priests would not be ready for unity.

- [Fellay:] I do not fear it. There may always be a dissonant voice here or there. But the zeal with which the faithful prayed the Rosary to ask for the removal of the excommunications says a lot about our union; 1 700 000 rosaries were said in two and a half months.

- In your letter to the faithful of January 24 [PDF], you display your desire to examine, with Rome, the deeper causes of the "unprecedented crisis which afflicts the Church today". What are these causes?

- [Fellay:] In the essence, this crisis is caused by a new approach to the world, a new view of man, that is, an anthropocentrism which consists of an exaltation of man and a forgetfulness of God. The arrival of modern philosophies, with their less precise language, has led to confusion in theology.

- Is the Second Vatican Council also responsible for the Church crisis, in your opinion?

- [Fellay:] Not all comes from the Church. But it is true that we reject a part of the Council. Benedict XVI himself condemned those who claim the Spirit of Vatican II to demand an evolution of the Church in a break with its past.

- Ecumenism and religious liberty are at the center of the criticisms you make of Vatican II

- [Fellay:] The quest for unity of all in the Mystical Body of the Church is our dearest desire. Nonetheless, the method that is used is not appropriate. Today, there is such a focus on the points which unite us to other Christian confessions that those which separate us are forgotten. We believe that those who have left the Catholic Church, that is, the Orthodox and the Protestants, should come back to it. We conceive ecumenism as a return to the unity of Truth.

Regarding religious liberty, it is necessary to distinguish two situations: the religious liberty of the person, and the relations between Church and State. Religious liberty implies liberty of conscience. We agree with the fact that there is not a right to force anyone to accept a religion. As for our reflection on the relations between Church and State, it is based on the principle of tolerance. It seems clear to us that there where there are multiple religions, the State should be watchful of their good coexistence and peace. Nevertheless, there is but one religion that is true, and the others are not. But we tolerate this situation for the good of all.

- What will happen if the negotiations fail?

- [Fellay:] I am confident. If the Church says today anything that is in contradiction with what it taught yesterday, and if it forced us to accept this change, then it must explain the reason for it. I believe in the infallibility of the Church, and I think that we will reach a true solution.

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

Thanks for posting that. Bishop Fellay gave true, but diplomatic answers. He responded to the question of religious liberty using the Catholic principal of “tolerance” and did not go any further. What I mean is, he did not condemn the false religious liberty that is being taught and promoted today. Rather, he explained the true principal that permits a variety of religions in the State without claiming they have a “right” to exist.

In my opinion, this interview gives an idea of how things are progressing with Rome, and how the points of dispute are being dealt with.

God Bless the SSPX and Pope Benedict. Since the election of our new President, we do indeed have many reasons to “hope” for some real “change”, and it has nothing to do with Barak Hussein Mohamed Obama and his “Muslim faith”.

youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

 

[RyanML]

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/fellay-first-interview.html

Monday, January 26, 2009
Fellay: the first interview
"I am confident"
The Swiss daily Le Temps published today the first interview granted to journalist Patricia Briel by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), after the remission of excommunications made public last Saturday.

The full text:

- Do you condemn the negationist declarations of Bishop Williamson?

- [Fellay:] It does not belong to me to condemn them. I do not have the competence for his. But I deplore that a Bishop may have given the impression of involving the Fraternity with a view that is not ours.

- According to observers, the Pope's decision could create divisions within the Fraternity. All the faithful and priests would not be ready for unity.

- [Fellay:] I do not fear it. There may always be a dissonant voice here or there. But the zeal with which the faithful prayed the Rosary to ask for the removal of the excommunications says a lot about our union; 1 700 000 rosaries were said in two and a half months.

- In your letter to the faithful of January 24 [PDF], you display your desire to examine, with Rome, the deeper causes of the "unprecedented crisis which afflicts the Church today". What are these causes?

- [Fellay:] In the essence, this crisis is caused by a new approach to the world, a new view of man, that is, an anthropocentrism which consists of an exaltation of man and a forgetfulness of God. The arrival of modern philosophies, with their less precise language, has led to confusion in theology.

- Is the Second Vatican Council also responsible for the Church crisis, in your opinion?

- [Fellay:] Not all comes from the Church. But it is true that we reject a part of the Council. Benedict XVI himself condemned those who claim the Spirit of Vatican II to demand an evolution of the Church in a break with its past.

- Ecumenism and religious liberty are at the center of the criticisms you make of Vatican II

- [Fellay:] The quest for unity of all in the Mystical Body of the Church is our dearest desire. Nonetheless, the method that is used is not appropriate. Today, there is such a focus on the points which unite us to other Christian confessions that those which separate us are forgotten. We believe that those who have left the Catholic Church, that is, the Orthodox and the Protestants, should come back to it. We conceive ecumenism as a return to the unity of Truth.

Regarding religious liberty, it is necessary to distinguish two situations: the religious liberty of the person, and the relations between Church and State. Religious liberty implies liberty of conscience. We agree with the fact that there is not a right to force anyone to accept a religion. As for our reflection on the relations between Church and State, it is based on the principle of tolerance. It seems clear to us that there where there are multiple religions, the State should be watchful of their good coexistence and peace. Nevertheless, there is but one religion that is true, and the others are not. But we tolerate this situation for the good of all.

- What will happen if the negotiations fail?

- [Fellay:] I am confident. If the Church says today anything that is in contradiction with what it taught yesterday, and if it forced us to accept this change, then it must explain the reason for it. I believe in the infallibility of the Church, and I think that we will reach a true solution.

I have always respected Bishop Fellay for his humility and his reverence for the authorities in Rome, even when he disagreed with them. Very well said!

 

[3Sanctus]

I know this is off-topic but I don’t want to start a whole new thread for a quick question…who is the head of the SSPX?

 

[Christus_Rex_1]

I know this is off-topic but I don’t want to start a whole new thread for a quick question…who is the head of the SSPX?

Bishop Fellay

 

[utunumsint]

Just for some context, what was Saturday’s big news? Can you provide me a link to where the vatican has published this remission?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Lancer]

As I try to read and understand all that Rome is saying and also what Bishop Fellay said…I offer the following:

1. Where does SSPX’s definition of obedience to the Holy Father…to Peter…fit in? Specifically, when SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated new bishops without the Pope’s permission (disobeying his vows of obedience & loyalty to the Holy Father)…its one thing to disagree with the Church’s teachings vis-a-vis Vatican II…but to split (force an excommunication decree by the Holy Father) and make new bishops is quite violent spiritually speaking.
2. Only Pope Benedict XVI has a charism of infallibility (being led and protected by the Holy Spirit) in this on going saga…and that along with his God given intellect, theological prowess and deep spiritual life (union with Christ)…I would not assume that this latest "Rome–SSPX " negotiation is on equal terms…no matter what Fellay says or thinks. In a secular mode of speaking, I would not want to be playing “chess” against Pope B-XVI under any circumstances.
3. When Vatican II ended and many of the uncalled for and unprecedented radical rupture changes were foisted upon the faithful (I was sorely disappointed in what I saw happening)…Joseph Ratzinger (a brilliant, holy and humble theologian) was outspoken…and yet remained obedient to the Church…he kept his vows especially as a bishop and was loyal to the Holy Father/Magisterium…where as Archbishop Lefebvre et.al., disobeyed their vows and severed their loyalty to the Holy Father. If the brilliant and holy Ratzinger stayed the course…and Lefebvre did not…does that make…!? What am I missing or not understanding about SSPX?
4. Bottom Line: I equate the 40 years since Vatican II (1965-2005) with the 40 years that Moses (I often thought of JP-II as my “Moses”) and the Jewish people wandered in the desert…a time of severe testing and fighting among themselves --simply, it is “Divine Providence…His Will be done!” It has been a time for me to make a personal declaration in my faith and works to obey the Two Great Commandments…and to declare Who I say Jesus Christ really is and to follow him…in full accordance with the Catholic Church’s teachings. I do pray that I have so far, and will continue to do so (given that I can go to Confession whenever I fall short or on my spiritual face)…and will get into the promised land (I have always thought that Moses got a very tough judgment from the Lord on not getting to enter into the promised land after all he did and went through).

Pax Christi

 

[cspb56]

Don’t count on any reconciliation soon. In an interview Bishop Fellay voiced his confidence that further negotiations with the Holy See will successfully resolve the canonical status of the SSPX. But he also indicated that the traditionalist group will continue to oppose some teachings of Vatican II, saying that “it is true that we reject a part of the Council.” That statement closes the door for any quick union. You can’t decide what you accept and what you reject if you are claiming to be orthodox. He sounds like a cafeteria catholic.

 

[3Sanctus]

CSPB56, check out the thread of the “HUGE” news - I don’t remember the exact title off the top of my head - that’s also in the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. It discusses the idea Rome may directly point out the lack of infallibility of the Second Vatican Council.

Keep in mind both of the Holy Fathers - Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI - termed the council as being “pastoral,” and that infallibility is only possible on moral/doctrinal issues. At least that’s my understanding…I’m not a theologian here (and for the record I regularly attend Novus Ordo Masses and don’t have a huge problem with Vatican II - the actual council, as opposed to the yet-to-be-defined “spirit” of the council that apparently eludes us more conservative Catholics…).

In Christian Unity for His Sake.
Stephen

 

[Extempore]

CSPB56, check out the thread of the “HUGE” news - I don’t remember the exact title off the top of my head - that’s also in the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. It discusses the idea Rome may directly point out the lack of infallibility of the Second Vatican Council.

Keep in mind both of the Holy Fathers - Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI - termed the council as being “pastoral,” and that infallibility is only possible on moral/doctrinal issues.

(Bolded for emphasis)

Thank you!
Pastoral councils do not have dogmatic force so it is not possible to consider one who does not agree with the whole of Vatican II as “unorthodox”.

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously… The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.``

-Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the Council, 11 October, 1962 (emphasis added)

“Some ask what authority – what theological qualification – the Council had attached to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is familiar to those who remember the conciliar declaration of 6 March 1964, repeated on 16 November 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.”

-Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Finally, comparing the statements of Bishop Fellay to those of Pope Paul VI one might be surprised to find them not at odds:

“We cannot help noticing the unprecedented crisis which is shaking the Church today: crisis of vocations, crisis of religious practice, of catechism, of the reception of the sacraments… Before us, Paul VI went so far as to say that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan had entered the Church”, and he spoke of the “self-destruction of the Church”. John Paul II did not hesitate to say that Catholicism in Europe was, as it were, in a state of “silent apostasy.” Shortly before his election to the Throne of Peter, Benedict XVI compared the Church to a “boat taking in water on every side.” Thus, during these discussions with the Roman authorities we want to examine the deep causes of the present situation, and by bringing the appropriate remedy, achieve a lasting restoration of the Church.”

• Bishop Fellay, Menzingen, January 24, 2009

And then:

“We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation…
We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.”

• Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972

 

[Dauphin]

Don’t count on any reconciliation soon. In an interview Bishop Fellay voiced his confidence that further negotiations with the Holy See will successfully resolve the canonical status of the SSPX. But he also indicated that the traditionalist group will continue to oppose some teachings of Vatican II, saying that “it is true that we reject a part of the Council.” That statement closes the door for any quick union. You can’t decide what you accept and what you reject if you are claiming to be orthodox. He sounds like a cafeteria catholic.

The Pope, when he was Cardinal, admitted that certain parts of the Council carry less weight than others. For example, you don’t have to agree with the Vatican’s practical approach to other religions.

We’ll have to wait to see whether the SSPX can accept what Rome insists upon.