P
Excommunicated bishop Fellay renews attacks on Christ's vicar
- Status
P
Padua_Minded
Guest
Perhaps I might complement my OP with a quote from “schoolman” at Fr Z’s blog:
What is “sad” here is that even President Bush—leader of this so-called “masonic” nation—seems to have shown more respect to the Holy Father than Bishop Fellay has given.
Comment by schoolman — 4 June 2008 @ 2:27 pm
What is “sad” here is that even President Bush—leader of this so-called “masonic” nation—seems to have shown more respect to the Holy Father than Bishop Fellay has given.
Comment by schoolman — 4 June 2008 @ 2:27 pm
G
GerardP
Guest
It seems that “schoolman” is ripping off my own post on Fr Z’s. Where I stated that the President gave a more dignified reception to the Pope than the Cardinals did.
Please quit the propaganda. It looks pathetic. Using the “Christ’s Vicar” title to emphasize some sort of impeccability to the Pope is just silly.
You could just as easily and more truthfully say, “Persecuted bishop tells the truth about Christ’s Vicar’s liberal tendencies.”
Please quit the propaganda. It looks pathetic. Using the “Christ’s Vicar” title to emphasize some sort of impeccability to the Pope is just silly.
You could just as easily and more truthfully say, “Persecuted bishop tells the truth about Christ’s Vicar’s liberal tendencies.”
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
Before this turns into a SSPX bashing I quite sure that Bishop Felly is comparing Pope Benedict to Pope Leo XII, XIII, Pius IX, X ,XII etc.and in that respect they believe that he is more liberal.
These Popes were against separation of Church and State because they saw Inherent dangers in such a situation. The SSPX still holds to this view that if you separate the Church from the state, the state will become Godless.
In the SSPX’s view the Church since Vatican II has taken a more "liberal " view and not the traditional view.
Also the language that the Church uses today is less ‘severe’ than in the past. You would never hear Pope Benedict say:
“Also perverse is the shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory which is greatly at variance even with reason” Pius IX
“as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ;… His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ…It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power”
Pius XI
“Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood” Pope Gregory XVI
, “justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it
Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it.” Leo XIII
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I don’t get it. How is this an “attack”? Bishop Fellay is just stating facts.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Yeah really…I guess the truth hurts…all the anti-sspx’ers get their panties in a twist whenever they have to hear what is an obvious fact. I wonder why? Its not like its any big secret.I don’t get it. How is this an “attack”? Bishop Fellay is just stating facts.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Attack? This is an attack:
catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=46479
And Hans Kung isn’t even excommunicated.
catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=46479
And Hans Kung isn’t even excommunicated.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Piouswoman- Once again, I love the attitude in your posts.
I’m in agreement with all here.
From my perspective, it seems like two great holy men are clashing over principles. The dialogue is between Rome and the SSPX, not Rome and the unorthodox. Just my impression of things.
Seems like things are improving.
I’m in agreement with all here.
From my perspective, it seems like two great holy men are clashing over principles. The dialogue is between Rome and the SSPX, not Rome and the unorthodox. Just my impression of things.
Seems like things are improving.
S
Spiller
Guest
Do you need attention that badly? That’s a horrible thing to say.I don’t get it. How is this an “attack”? Bishop Fellay is just stating facts.
S
Spiller
Guest
Is the SSPX considered Protestant or pagan by the Catholic Church? I keep forgetting…
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
They are not heretics- in fact I’d warrant to say they are the most doctrinally orthodox group there is, for the most part.
At the same time, I lament the fact they did not submit to Rome in their decision making, and thus would never attend Mass at their chapels unless there was nothing else around. If one doesn’t submit to Papal authority I’m not interested.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I think I’d worry more about whether the followers of Fr. Phlager (and other priests like him) will stay in full communion with the Church. They’ve appealed his 2-week suspension by Cardinal George and tensions are mounting. At least I don’t see Fellay motivating his defenders to picket Rome.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Haha yeah.
For some reason all kinds of ridiculous stuff can go on and we’re supposed to remember our role as lay people (pray,pay, obey,etc.) but when clergy are actually taking a stand and are concerned with where we end up in the next life, instead of appearing diplomatic to non-Catholics, we’re “protestants” for supporting them.
G
Genesis315
Guest
If you read what those Popes wrote, they taught the authentic separation–each being independent in their own sphere. But, they rejected the false separation in that both should not work together in harmony for the common good of men since both have that as their end and both are subject to the same God–that is, they rejected the separation of truth and state. The current Pontiff has not taught that it doesn’t matter what religion one belongs to or that God’s reign does not extend into the civil sphere–in fact, it has been quite the opposite.
When the Pope went to America, he was comparing the American system which from early on allowed mention of God and objective morality in public debate (and still does, although it is withering) and the more extreme secular nations which completely ban Him from public life. Leo XIII did the same thing in his encyclical* Longinqua* (in which he also praises the Mason George Washington–which of course, no one would then draw that Leo was a Mason or held to Masonic principles).
In fact, anyone who keeps up with the Pope’s speeches and writings (including some when he was cardinal–like Called to Communion in which he criticizes the secularism of 19th century liberalism and it’s destruction of public faith) will see that one of the main themes of his pontificate is to assert that the Catholic faith should be proclaimed publically and taken into account in the government of nations (which in most places is the democratic process) as it is essential to the common good. Remember it was he who advocated crucifixes returning to public buildings in Italy and the Italian state funding Catholic schools. Before becoming pope was also involved with the 1993 concordat with Poland which has similar themes.
Likewise, he has also been critical of such regimes as those Islamic ones where people are killed for converting. This is contrary to Catholic principles that the act of faith must be free or it is not true faith at all (see link below)–and America respects that freedom.
In fact, one of major ends of the Second Vatican Council was to re-inject Catholic truth into the public dialogue (where it had been lacking) as it was necessary for the common good. Even Archbishop Leferbve in his open letter admits to lamenting before the Council that the faith was not being brought out into the world.
In regards to religious liberty, the SSPX fails to understand it with the mind of either the Holy Father or the official interpretive texts of the Council. See posts 10 and 11 I wrote on another site that cites and explains all the relevant texts:
Post 10
Post 11
Finally, the SSPX fail to recognize that at the time of Vatican II–and even moreso now–there were not Catholic countries like there were in the early and mid-second millenium. The relationship between the Church and the State by necessity cannot be the same as it was then (believers should not be unequally yoked), but rather more like it was during the reign of pagan emperors. The principles are not different, but the application of those principle to different situations often yields a different approach.
If we want the “state” to worship God we must share the truth and love of God with all men so that the human beings who make up the state freely choose to worship God. That is how respect for the authority of Christ’s reign is to be spread. When the state was one man, that was easier to do, but it is still the way it was done. You can’t force people to worship Christ–He Himself does not do so.
When the Pope went to America, he was comparing the American system which from early on allowed mention of God and objective morality in public debate (and still does, although it is withering) and the more extreme secular nations which completely ban Him from public life. Leo XIII did the same thing in his encyclical* Longinqua* (in which he also praises the Mason George Washington–which of course, no one would then draw that Leo was a Mason or held to Masonic principles).
In fact, anyone who keeps up with the Pope’s speeches and writings (including some when he was cardinal–like Called to Communion in which he criticizes the secularism of 19th century liberalism and it’s destruction of public faith) will see that one of the main themes of his pontificate is to assert that the Catholic faith should be proclaimed publically and taken into account in the government of nations (which in most places is the democratic process) as it is essential to the common good. Remember it was he who advocated crucifixes returning to public buildings in Italy and the Italian state funding Catholic schools. Before becoming pope was also involved with the 1993 concordat with Poland which has similar themes.
Likewise, he has also been critical of such regimes as those Islamic ones where people are killed for converting. This is contrary to Catholic principles that the act of faith must be free or it is not true faith at all (see link below)–and America respects that freedom.
In fact, one of major ends of the Second Vatican Council was to re-inject Catholic truth into the public dialogue (where it had been lacking) as it was necessary for the common good. Even Archbishop Leferbve in his open letter admits to lamenting before the Council that the faith was not being brought out into the world.
In regards to religious liberty, the SSPX fails to understand it with the mind of either the Holy Father or the official interpretive texts of the Council. See posts 10 and 11 I wrote on another site that cites and explains all the relevant texts:
Post 10
Post 11
Finally, the SSPX fail to recognize that at the time of Vatican II–and even moreso now–there were not Catholic countries like there were in the early and mid-second millenium. The relationship between the Church and the State by necessity cannot be the same as it was then (believers should not be unequally yoked), but rather more like it was during the reign of pagan emperors. The principles are not different, but the application of those principle to different situations often yields a different approach.
If we want the “state” to worship God we must share the truth and love of God with all men so that the human beings who make up the state freely choose to worship God. That is how respect for the authority of Christ’s reign is to be spread. When the state was one man, that was easier to do, but it is still the way it was done. You can’t force people to worship Christ–He Himself does not do so.
P
pnewton
Guest
Since when is name-calling a fact, much less on obvious one? Calling some one a liberal is expressing an opinion, whether commonly held or not. It is a hold-over from playground childishness.
My own opinion (which I do not pretend to be fact), is that Fellay is as embittered as an anti-Catholic and far more damaging to the Catholic faith. His comments constently reek of conspiratorial paranoia and anger at how the Holy Spirit has guided the Catholic Church over the last few decades. I see in his attitude an angry non serviam and for much the same reasons it was originally spoken. I sure tire of him attacking my family and loved ones.
N
Nickkname
Guest
I’ll pray for the Bishop. 
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Anti-Catholic?
I’ve enjoyed reading a number of your posts, but I can’t take that seriously. The man is obviously a very committed Catholic. In fact, he’s a validly ordained Catholic bishop (althought excommunicated).
He might be a little to entrenched about some things at the moment, though.
I (in all seriousness) worry about the folks who might have their feelings hurt when they come back into full communion and those excommunications are lifted.
How as he insulted your family?
P
pnewton
Guest
Both are problematic. I see no significant difference between the two. A wolf by any other name…
P
pnewton
Guest
I did not call him anti-catholic. I said he was as embittered as an anti-Catholic, which implies he is *not *an anti-Catholic. His speeches often read more like a Jack Chick tract than an coherent homily.
The Holy Father is my father. The Church he rails against are my brothers and sisters. I always get my bristles up when we are attacked.
C
catharina
Guest
May God have mercy on us.
I hope this thread is closed at once.
PS - ditto to comments of pnewton.
I hope this thread is closed at once.
PS - ditto to comments of pnewton.
- Status