Excommunicated bishop Fellay renews attacks on Christ's vicar

[laudamus_te]

laudamus te:

I don’t get it. How is this an “attack”? Bishop Fellay is just stating facts.

Do you need attention that badly? That’s a horrible thing to say.

Why is it horrible? Or do you think along the lines of pnewton?

pnewton:

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.

Stating the the pope is liberal is not name-calling any more than stating that Barack Obama is liberal. And it’s not an opinion. It is a statement of fact based on evidence of a person’s public record. I think the angry reactions from some to Bishop Fellay’s statement are because he is saying something that they don’t want to hear. Rather than consider what he is saying, and identifying the truth in his words, it is easier to simply wave the SSPX off and dismiss them entirely on grounds of an unjust “excommunication” and prattle on about “obedience” to back it up. What Piouswoman said bears repeating:

It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.

I believe that much of the animosity towards the SSPX is the result of a knee-jerk reaction from mentalities that have been steeped in the false notion that the pope is protected from criticism by prelates simply by reason of his holy office. And despite the unsavory taste of the word “excommunicated” in one’s holy mouth, it does not equate to “not Catholic” or “protestant” or, as was even more ridiculously suggested, “pagan.” An excommunicate is still Catholic. Moreover, the priests ordained by the bishops are validly ordained.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Your question has been asked and answered – and footnoted.

I am curious now. Given that the original sspx ministers were excommunicated, have they been able to validly ordain any new ministers?

Yes. The Orthodox are in a state of schism and heresy and still have mantained valid apostilic succession.

The only thing that would invalidate an ordination is lack of form or lack of intention- that is, if the SSPX bishops didn’t intend to ordain as the church understands ordination (That is why Anglicans do not have valid priests, but the Orthodox do). Given the SSPX fanatacism with pure doctrines, it is safe to say SSPX ordinations are valid.

 

[Spiller]

Why is it horrible?
Because his comments are fallacious and inflammatory:

*"And now, we have a perfectly liberal Pope, my very dear brothers. As he goes to this country [the United States], which is founded upon Masonic principles, that is, of a revolution, of a rebellion against God. And, well, he expressed his admiration, his fascination before this country which has decided to grant liberty to all religions. He goes so far as to condemn the confessional State. And he is called traditional! And this is true, this is true: he is perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory. He has some good sides, the sides which we hail, for which we rejoice, such as what he has done for the Traditional liturgy.

What a mystery, my very dear brothers, what a mystery!"*

I believe that much of the animosity towards the SSPX is the result of a knee-jerk reaction from mentalities that have been steeped in the false notion that the pope is protected from criticism by prelates simply by reason of his holy office. And despite the unsavory taste of the word “excommunicated” in one’s holy mouth, it does not equate to “not Catholic” or “protestant” or, as was even more ridiculously suggested, “pagan.” An excommunicate is still Catholic. Moreover, the priests ordained by the bishops are validly ordained.

I rather believe it’s based on three things.

1.) That a group of men (Lefebvre, et. al.) followed their own swollen egos and turned their back on the Church.

2.) That said men attack the Church with anti-Catholic lies.

3.) That their supporters now claim they did/do nothing wrong.

 

[Spiller]

Yes. The Orthodox are in a state of schism and heresy and still have mantained valid apostilic succession.

The only thing that would invalidate an ordination is lack of form or lack of intention- that is, if the SSPX bishops didn’t intend to ordain as the church understands ordination (That is why Anglicans do not have valid priests, but the Orthodox do). Given the SSPX fanatacism with pure doctrines, it is safe to say SSPX ordinations are valid.

You are wrong…

First, the Orthodox are not in heresy.

Second, the mutual Catholics/Orthodox excommunications have been mutually lifted. This is not true of the sspx.

Like the Anglicans and unlike the Orthodox, the sspx is not able to consecrate bishops. When their last original bishop dies, they have no way to ordain more priests so the group would lose its priesthood.

Do they even have any validly consecrated bishops left?

 

[piouswoman]

I rather believe it’s based on three things.

1.) That a group of men (Lefebvre, et. al.) followed their own swollen egos and turned their back on the Church.

2.) That said men attack the Church with anti-Catholic lies.

3.) That their supporters now claim they did/do nothing wrong.

Here is what happened at Vatican Council II:

1.)A group of bishops followed their own swollen and modernistic egos and turned their back on the Church.

2.) That said bishops attack the Church with modernist and anti-Catholic lies, contrary to Church doctrine.

3.) That their blind and falsely obedient sheep now believe and claim that they did/do nothing wrong.

 

[laudamus_te]

Because his comments are fallacious and inflammatory:

"And now, we have a perfectly liberal Pope, my very dear brothers. As he goes to this country [the United States], which is founded upon Masonic principles, that is, of a revolution, of a rebellion against God. And, well, he expressed his admiration, his fascination before this country which has decided to grant liberty to all religions. He goes so far as to condemn the confessional State. And he is called traditional! And this is true, this is true: he is perfectly liberal, perfectly contradictory. He has some good sides, the sides which we hail, for which we rejoice, such as what he has done for the Traditional liturgy.

What a mystery, my very dear brothers, what a mystery!"

OK, please point out the “fallacious” words.

 

[pnewton]

Stating the the pope is liberal is not name-calling … And it’s not an opinion. It is a statement of fact based on evidence of a person’s public record…

Would the Holy Father agree with, or has he agreed, with Fellay’s characterization of him as a liberal, since it is a self-evident fact?

 

[JuanCarlos]

You are wrong…

First, the Orthodox are not in heresy.

Second, the mutual Catholics/Orthodox excommunications have been mutually lifted. This is not true of the sspx.

Like the Anglicans and unlike the Orthodox, the sspx is not able to consecrate bishops. When their last original bishop dies, they have no way to ordain more priests so the group would lose its priesthood.

Do they even have any validly consecrated bishops left?

1. Orthodox deny purgatory, papal infallibility, the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, the Assumption of Mary, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. Oriental Orthodox are monophysite in theology. What does Heretic mean to you?
2. For 1000 years Orthodox bishops validly consecrated new generations of priests and bishops despite being in a state of excommunicated by the Pope.
3. The SSPX still have 4 valid bishops, ordained illicitly by Archbishop Lefebvre. I imagine that when these bishops start dying off one of them will illicitly, but validly ordain new bishops.
4. Yes, four.

The SSPX undeniably have valid orders- more extreme traditional groups have dubious validity (some “traditional” sects have their lineage in Old Catholic bishops and through Archbishop Thuc, who many considered insane).

I’m not even pro-SSPX by any means, I’m just saying that they are real priests.

 

[piouswoman]

Would the Holy Father agree with, or has he agreed, with Fellay’s characterization of him as a liberal, since it is a self-evident fact?

Most definitely, the Holy Father would agree that he is a liberal…
traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

 

[Genesis315]

1. Orthodox deny purgatory, papal infallibility, the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, the Assumption of Mary, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

They deny two spirations and two principles, not what we believe. They believe in the Assumption of Mary. The denial of papal authority has generally been categorized under schism. And in regards to Purgatory and Original Sin, at both reunion councils, during the various unia, and when Leo XIII offered them reunion, those issues were seen as a difference in explanation, not in truth.

Our position is more that they think we believe wrongly than we think they do. In all official church documents referring to them, schism is used, not heresy.

 

[laudamus_te]

You are wrong…

First, the Orthodox are not in heresy.

Second, the mutual Catholics/Orthodox excommunications have been mutually lifted. This is not true of the sspx.

Like the Anglicans and unlike the Orthodox, the sspx is not able to consecrate bishops. When their last original bishop dies, they have no way to ordain more priests so the group would lose its priesthood.

Do they even have any validly consecrated bishops left?

The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated, as are their priests.

By the way, the part of your post which I have underlined above is one precise reason why Archbishop Lefebvre performed the episcopal consecrations in a justifiable disobedience to the Pope. Rome would not guarantee bishops who would lead and ordain his traditionally formed candidates for the priesthood, and hence without traditional bishops the traditional priesthood would soon die.

 

[laudamus_te]

Would the Holy Father agree with, or has he agreed, with Fellay’s characterization of him as a liberal, since it is a self-evident fact?

So, if the Holy Father doesn’t believe he’s liberal, that makes Fellay a liar to say that he is? Is that what you’re saying? If I believe that I’m a fish, and you say that I’m not, does that make you a liar?

 

[Genesis315]

Most definitely, the Holy Father would agree that he is a liberal…
traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

There are timeless principles and there are applications of principles to factual situations. If we look at the relationship of the Church and the State in the first few centuries compared with the middle ages, and then in more recent centuries, the relationship and ecclesiastical policy changes depending on the nature of the state. If the State is Catholic already, the relationship with the Church is one thing, when the state is pagan or secular, it is another.

Gaudium et Spes did not overturn the timeless principles in the Syllabus (and each point in the syllabus needs to be read in its corresponding citation–it’s a syllabus, not something meant to be read alone), but it did acknowledge that a certain reality no longer existed. As Ratzinger said, Pius XI is a good place to start reading and also Pius XII (but also Leo XIII in some sense.)

Gaudium et Spes is th counter syllabus not in regards to condemning the syllabus, but to offering the complementary positive affirmations as well as applying Catholic principles to new circumstances. The point was not to retreat from the world, but to engage it and be the leaven within it by injecting Catholic truth into the world dialogue from which it had been excluded.

 

[pnewton]

So, if the Holy Father doesn’t believe he’s liberal, that makes Fellay a liar to say that he is?

Is it inherent in the SSPX supporters to put words in others mouth. No. If only Holy Father’s detractors and attackers call him a liberal, it makes it an opinion and, thus name-calling, as opposed to a fact. A fact would be his weight, place of birth, etc.

Is this hard?

 

[piouswoman]

There are timeless principles and there are applications of principles to factual situations. If we look at the relationship of the Church and the State in the first few centuries compared with the middle ages, and then in more recent centuries, the relationship and ecclesiastical policy changes depending on the nature of the state. If the State is Catholic already, the relationship with the Church is one thing, when the state is pagan or secular, it is another.

Gaudium et Spes did not overturn the timeless principles in the Syllabus (and each point in the syllabus needs to be read in its corresponding citation–it’s a syllabus, not something meant to be read alone), but it did acknowledge that a certain reality no longer existed. As Ratzinger said, Pius XI is a good place to start reading and also Pius XII (but also Leo XIII in some sense.)

Gaudium et Spes is th counter syllabus not in regards to condemning the syllabus, but to offering the complementary positive affirmations as well as applying Catholic principles to new circumstances. The point was not to retreat from the world, but to engage it and be the leaven within it by injecting Catholic truth into the world dialogue from which it had been excluded.

You are incorrect, quite frankly:

Then on the Council’s key text Gaudium et Spes, Cardinal Ratzinger describes it as a Counter-Syllabus, in other words the opposite of the Catholic Church’s authoritative Syllabus of 1864. *The Cardinal writes (Principles of Catholic Theology [Téqui, 1982], p.42ó),
**
If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et Spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions), a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus… Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et Spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789.
*

from:
ireland.sspx.net/bishop%20fellay%20letters/Fellay62.htm

and further documentation:
traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

 

[piouswoman]

Is it inherent in the SSPX supporters to put words in others mouth. No. If only Holy Father’s detractors and attackers call him a liberal, it makes it an opinion and, thus name-calling, as opposed to a fact. A fact would be his weight, place of birth, etc.

Is this hard?

Many have called him a conservative, so why is it such a touchy subject with you and others that Bishop Fellay called him a liberal, of which it is documented and proven fact? If it is so touchy a label then it follows that it must be because it is* the truth* and many simply can’t admit to it nor face it, knowing in the very fiber of their being that the truth cannot be hidden or suppressed.

 

[Cat]

I just read through the sticky at the top of the Traditional Section about the SSPX:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=219030

I found it very helpful to understanding how a Catholic should approach the SSPX. Perhaps some of you will, too. Post #7 was especially good.

Based on this sticky, I’m a little surprised that some of these posts are being allowed to stand in this thread, but hey, I’m not a moderator.

 

[Genesis315]

You are incorrect, quite frankly:

Then on the Council’s key text Gaudium et Spes, Cardinal Ratzinger describes it as a Counter-Syllabus, in other words the opposite of the Catholic Church’s authoritative Syllabus of 1864. *The Cardinal writes (Principles of Catholic Theology [Téqui, 1982], p.42ó),
**
If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et Spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions), a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus… Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et Spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789.
*

from:
ireland.sspx.net/bishop%20fellay%20letters/Fellay62.htm

and further documentation:
traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

If you want to simply say I am wrong and just repeat what you already posted, I have already acknowledged that as your position. I’ve also read the SSPX arguments and they are lacking. They read everything with the hermeneutic of suspicion, attempting to see it in the worst light possible–that is completely at odds with the modus of the saints.

Likewise, their view of traditional Church teaching and praxis on this matter seems very limited to about 3 centuries. And I sympathize with them because many, especially the French, in those centuries were hurt by the revolution in civil government and life that took place and they found comfort in the faith during those times. But it is not true that everything must be done exactly as it was in those centuries or else it is heretical.

In the 19th century we see the final attempts to hold what vestiges of that past order together. Sadly, it was not successful. But the Church is not so linked to the state that when the state fails, so does the Church. Rather, she must again make her presence known and re-evangelize that sector. Condemning or even commanding people who don’t respect your authority in the first place bears no fruit–just try it some time. The Church cannot simply isolate herself, but must reach out to a world of poor sinners. And anyone with any experience in the field of evanglization knows this is not done through harsh condemnation. Harsh condemnation is for those who know (or should know) better.

This is why St. Paul in Acts first pointed out what was good in the culture he sought to transfigure. He showed well why what was good was good, why what was evil was evil, and then how the Catholic faith was the fulfillment of what was good (and how it was what every human hear and soul was in need of). He also reasoned for great lengths of time.

It is vain to use an approach geared for one set of circumstances when another exists. When the state is essentially all members of the Church, a certain approach may be best, but when the state is not, a different one is necessary. That is the point Ratzinger was making. The situation the Church was in had changed radically. That doesn’t mean the principles the Syllabus is based on were over turned (that truth is objective, that there is one true religion, that the state has the obligation to govern itself according to truth, etc.) Gaudium et Spes (and the current Holy Father) both affirm that the Catholic faith is an essential element of the common good of all nations.

The problems of today are due to the faithful not taking that approach, but becoming more indifferent and turned in on themselves. But such is how it has always been, it is our sins and self-love that hinder the mission–but praise God, He is mightier than our sin!

 

[catharina]

I just read through the sticky at the top of the Traditional Section about the SSPX:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=219030

I found it very helpful to understanding how a Catholic should approach the SSPX. Perhaps some of you will, too. Post #7 was especially good.

Based on this sticky, I’m a little surprised that some of these posts are being allowed to stand in this thread, but hey, I’m not a moderator.

I know that some have asked this thread be closed.
I still hope that happens - and the sooner the better.

 

[Dauphin]

They deny two spirations and two principles, not what we believe. They believe in the Assumption of Mary. The denial of papal authority has generally been categorized under schism. And in regards to Purgatory and Original Sin, at both reunion councils, during the various unia, and when Leo XIII offered them reunion, those issues were seen as a difference in explanation, not in truth.

Our position is more that they think we believe wrongly than we think they do. In all official church documents referring to them, schism is used, not heresy.

The Orthodox reject Papal Infallibility. This is a matter of doctrine.

If you asked an Orthodox whether the Pope is ever infallible, they would tell you “no”.

That’s called heresy. If you think otherwise, that’s called lunacy.