Excommunicated bishop Fellay renews attacks on Christ's vicar

[piouswoman]

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!

I will disagree with you. The problems of today as you have stated…that the faithful are more indifferent and turned in on themselves, is a direct result of the lack of direction and strong sound teaching of the truths of the Catholic Church. At Vatican II the Church decided to *embrace the world *and to try to fit into the modern world, when it is the **absolute **opposite that should occur…the Church and Her Traditions and Her Doctrines cannot change, because the TRUTH cannot change. The mistakes of the modernists have led to the mess we are in now…a result of that false notion, those false ideas are all summed up in the modernist errors.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, those darn modernists. Fellay called the pope a liberal. I guess the fruits don’t fall far from the tree when it comes to trite labels.

 

[Dauphin]

Yes, those darn modernists. Fellay called the pope a liberal. I guess the fruits don’t fall far from the tree when it comes to trite labels.

In fairness, if you compare Pope Benedict XVI to 261 of the 264 Popes who came before him, he is indeed a liberal.

 

[9Choirs]

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

Not before I add my two cents

I’m not sure how I can see that your *personal *question to me is relevant to the discussion. I am a Traditional Roman Catholic, just as you are (I assume).

I describe myself as a Catholic in full communion with Rome- full stop. There is no ‘traditional’ or ‘liberal’ tags with me. If you are faithful to the Church, they are unnecessary.

And I’ll safely assume, because of your passionate defence of the SSPX, that you are a member.

This thread IS under the heading of Traditional Catholicism so I wonder why so many come here if they don’t like Tradition? I rarely if ever post under any other forum…so anyone who comes to insult and belittle would be the divisive ones

Again, the problem is not that tradition is disliked, as the FSSP is not ‘insulted and belittled’ as they are in full communion with Rome. The same cannot be said of the SSPX, and if we’re discussing posting threads in this sub forum, topics which only fall under ‘legitimate traditional Catholicism’ where the groups are in full communion with Rome, then the SSPX does not qualify. They would qualify under a subforum titled ‘Possibly schismatic/Imperfect communion with Rome Catholicism’ however.

 

[Genesis315]

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.

I know, but it still has traditionally been included in rejection of papal authority and included under schism. I’m not making this up. I know you would not imply Pius XI was a lunatic:

1. We invite most sincerely the** Schismatics** to join with Us in this unity of the Church, and We desire also that all the faithful, following the teachings and in the footsteps of St. Josaphat, may strive, each according to his ability, to cooperate with Us towards the achievement of this purpose. May all realize, too, that unity is not so much promoted by discussions or by other artificial means, as by the example of a holy life and by good works, especially those dictated by charity towards our Slav brethren and all other Easterners. This, too, is the thought of the Apostle St. Paul when he writes: “Be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment. Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory; but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves: each one not considering the things that are his own, but those that are other men’s,” (Philippians ii, 2, 4).

1. To achieve this end, as it is necessary on the one hand for the Schismatic Easterners to lay aside their ancient prejudices and to seek really to know the true life of the Church, not attributing to the Roman Church the faults of mere individuals, faults which she is the first to condemn and seeks as well to correct; so the Latins, on their side, must strive to understand better and more profoundly the history and customs of the Easterners. It was because of an intimate knowledge of these facts that the apostolate of St. Josaphat turned out so successful.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11ECCLE.HTM

Or Bl. Pius IX:

Indeed, We would be greatly consoled and the whole church would exult greatly, if your whole nation (Armenia) would return to Catholic unity. You should understand from this, venerable brothers and dearly beloved sons, that We cannot approve the course of those who habitually deal harshly with the **schismatics **of your nation.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nemini.htm
He also calls them schismatics in Quae en Patriarchatu in 1872.

These are just a sampling. There are many other examples from more Popes who had no qualms of calling people heretics.

 

[PrayforMallory]

When they come back to perfect communion, I hope it doesn’t cause a lot of strife for folks.

The Institute of the Good Shepherd came back, and they have the empowerment to look critically at Vat II, from what I understand.

The SSPX may get a deal like that one day, and Bishop Fellay, well, he may just be a “Catholic Bishop.”

What unsettles me about the SSPX, are Fellay’s setting a timeline of “70 years” for the Church to be rid of errors. He shouldn’t do that. That’s really hinting at some dangerous stuff.

Besides, if they come back, they can always repair the damages to the house better from the inside anyway.

 

[Genesis315]

I will disagree with you. The problems of today as you have stated…that the faithful are more indifferent and turned in on themselves, is a direct result of the lack of direction and strong sound teaching of the truths of the Catholic Church. At Vatican II the Church decided to *embrace the world *and to try to fit into the modern world, when it is the **absolute **opposite that should occur…the Church and Her Traditions and Her Doctrines cannot change, because the TRUTH cannot change. The mistakes of the modernists have led to the mess we are in now…a result of that false notion, those false ideas are all summed up in the modernist errors.

That’s not true though. Read the decrees of the Council. There are more commands for the faithful to spread the Gospel and evangelize then in all other Councils combined. Our crisis is one of authority. As I mentioned before, the states were rejecting the authority of the Church and sadly it is often that the people follow in line (just see how nations when back and forth between orthodoxy and Arianism depending on the religion of their Gothic king–St. Isadore chronicles this well). This is the problem of today, and it involves many in the traditionalist movement as well–as St. Francis de Sales explained of the Church being subject to authority:

if she followed [the pastor] not, how would she be one? And what confusion would be seen in Christendom, while the one party should consider a law good the others bad, and while the sheep, instead of feeding and fattening in the pasture of Scripture and the Holy Word, should occupy themselves in controlling the decision of their superior?

Does not that describe the situation today?

The doctrines are not changed to fit with the world. Maybe this might help you understand. Have you brought many people into the Church? If you have you will know that you may have traveled different paths with different people. Someone grounded in the faith, but wallowing in sloth may be brought back with a harsh rebuke, someone who had negative stereotypes of the Church with a more mild approach and gentle explanations and great acts of charity, etc., etc. As St. Paul says, be all things to all men. That doesn’t mean we adopt their beliefs, but it does mean we find common ground with them and build from their in a fraternal manner. St. Paul didn’t change the truth to be all things to all men, but he did use different approaches with different men. That is my point.

 

[Spiller]

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.

I am not asking this rhetorically – do you even claim to be a Catholic Christian? I most certainly consider myself one. I want to understand from what position you make such anti-Catholic comments so I can respond in an appropriate manner. Thanks.

 

[Dauphin]

I know, but it still has traditionally been included in rejection of papal authority and included under schism. I’m not making this up. I know you would not imply Pius XI was a lunatic:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11ECCLE.HTM

Or Bl. Pius IX:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nemini.htm
He also calls them schismatics in Quae en Patriarchatu in 1872.

These are just a sampling. There are many other examples from more Popes who had no qualms of calling people heretics.

Let me see if I understand your logic:

1. Popes have referred to the Orthodox as schismatics.
2. Therefore, the Orthodox are not heretics.

Brilliant

 

[Spiller]

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.

1.) Priests are not consecrated – they are ordained.

2.) It really makes little difference what Lefebvre did or did not do. As soon as he and his crew were excommunicated, the lost the ability to consecrate more bishops. When those men who were already consecrated as bishops pass away, the sspx loses its ability to ordain new priests – gotta have bishops for that.

So when the last of those priests alive when the the last bishop dies finally passes, that’s it for the sspx. I guess they could try recruiting Catholic and/or Orthodox priests (or even a bishop!), but I would guess the sspx will fail for other reasons long before that…

 

[Genesis315]

Let me see if I understand your logic:

1. Popes have referred to the Orthodox as schismatics.
2. Therefore, the Orthodox are not heretics.

Brilliant

But they never call them heretics and they call everyone else heretics who are heretics. Leo XIII himself said papal primacy was all they needed to accept–such were also the terms of the previous unia as I pointed out before. I’m sorry I can’t help you better understand. I’m afraid we’ll just keep repeating ourselves.

 

[Dauphin]

I know, but it still has traditionally been included in rejection of papal authority and included under schism. I’m not making this up. I know you would not imply Pius XI was a lunatic:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11ECCLE.HTM

Or Bl. Pius IX:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nemini.htm
He also calls them schismatics in Quae en Patriarchatu in 1872.

These are just a sampling. There are many other examples from more Popes who had no qualms of calling people heretics.

Let’s try another heresy. The Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception. Here’s the definition by Pope Pius IX:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”

Either Mary was conceived without the actual, real stain of original sin, or she wasn’t. Either this stain existed or it didn’t. No amount of weasling can change the fact that the Orthodox do not accept the reality of the Immaculate Conception. They do not believe that Mary was preserved immaculate from this actual stain.

 

[pnewton]

In fairness, if you compare Pope Benedict XVI to 261 of the 264 Popes who came before him, he is indeed a liberal.

No, he is a 21st century pope. Comparing popes from different is problematic at best, futile at worst. That would be like considering the first pope die of natural causes a wimp because he has not martyred like the the popes of the first couple of centuries. This comparison would be a reason for Fellay’s argument, but it does not change his opinion from an opinion into a fact. Again, does the Holy Father consider himself a liberal? Do liberals in the Catholic Church believe him to be one of them?

Maybe it’s the hat.

 

[Genesis315]

Let’s try another heresy. The Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception. Here’s the definition by Pope Pius IX:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”

Either Mary was conceived without the actual, real stain of original sin, or she wasn’t. Either this stain existed or it didn’t. No amount of weasling can change the fact that the Orthodox do not accept the reality of the Immaculate Conception. They do not believe that Mary was preserved immaculate from this actual stain.

It has generally been understood that this is due to their different, but not heretical approach to original sin. They believe Mary is all immaculate as their liturgies proclaim. They accuse us of divinizing her before Heaven–that is where they err–in the interpretation of what we believe. Again, this Pontiff himself never accuses them of heresy. Neither do his successors. Neither did his predecessors.

 

[piouswoman]

I am not asking this rhetorically – do you even claim to be a Catholic Christian? I most certainly consider myself one. I want to understand from what position you make such anti-Catholic comments so I can respond in an appropriate manner. Thanks.

Do you? Your question is way out of line…I am merely demonstrating to you the bias and lack of charity and understanding of your post…things work both ways and until you and others acknowledge that there is a growing traditional movement and many Catholic souls are under the care of the good and holy priests of the SSPX there can be nothing but arguing and debate. You see, there are plenty of others just like myself, that don’t except the errors of modernism and who only want the pure, unadulterated and true Catholic Faith.

 

[JReducation]

That is scary. Why isn’t he excommunicated yet? He supports so many things against the Church

Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI saw no reason to condemn Fr. Kung because his theology is done within the context of the academic world. This is not what he is preaching from the pulpit.

What John Paul II did was to forbid him to teach Catholic theology. Fr. Kung accepted the Holy Father’s orders and stopped teaching Catholic theology. It was his obedience to the Holy Father’s orders that kept him in good standing with the Church. As long as Father Kung does not teach his thoughts as Catholic and is clear that these are this thoughts and are academic, not material for preaching, he will not be excommunicated. The Church does not excommunicate people for thinking.

No one may teach error, but everyone has a right to think and even write.

In addition, when Benedict XVI was elected Pope he invited Fr. Kung to Castel Gandolfo for dinner with him. They discussed their theological differences and agreed to disagree. Fr. Kung did not attack the Holy Father or question his authority. They spoke as two scholars interested in the same topic. The Pope sustained the Church’s teachings on the topic and Fr. Kung sustained his questions regarding the topic. But he also renewed his obedience to the Holy Father.

In fact the Holy Father put him in charge of the Ecumenical movement in Belgium, because he felt that Fr. Kung has a very good understanding of his (Benedict’s) understanding of ecumenism and goals in that domain and that Fr. Kung’s work is not in conflict with the Holy Father’s goals and beliefs regarding the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church.

JR

 

[Dauphin]

But they never call them heretics and they call everyone else heretics who are heretics. I’m sorry I can’t help you better understand.

A heretic is someone who rejects an article of the Catholic faith. The Orthodox reject articles of the Catholic faith, so they are heretics. It’s that simple.

 

[Dauphin]

It has generally been understood that this is due to their different, but not heretical approach to original sin. They believe Mary is all immaculate as their liturgies proclaim. They accuse us of divinizing her before Heaven–that is where they err–in the interpretation of what we believe. Again, this Pontiff himself never accuses them of heresy. Neither do his successors. Neither did his predecessors.

No. The Orthodox objection is that there was no actual stain to preserve Mary from. Consequently, they deny the dogma.

 

[JReducation]

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.

The Catholic Church has never called it heresy when stated by the Orthodox. There is a good reason for that. Infallibility was defined after the schism. The Orthodox were not part of Vatican I.

Also, the Orthodox have no broken with Apostolic succession. Therefore the Church cannot call them heretics.

Finally, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have lifted all excommunications and anathemas against all the Orthodox Churches, because they are Apostolic.

Benedict XVI believes that the problem between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics is a problem of hermaneutics, not a problem of faith.

Hermaneutics has to do with language, not dogma. The Holy Father stated several times, including in NY, that the Catholic Church is willing to work on the hermaneutics with the Orthodox and with the Protestants.

But this is also the problem with Bishop Fellay. He is not looking at hermaneutics. He’s makeing papal comparisons, rather than hermaneutic comparisons.

JR

 

[Genesis315]

A heretic is someone who rejects an article of the Catholic faith. The Orthodox reject articles of the Catholic faith, so they are heretics. It’s that simple.

But when that article is the authority of lawful pastors (including the Roman Pontiff) then it is schism. If you don’t want to adopt the praxis of said Pontiffs, then just a regular person like myself will not convince you either–and since, taking a step back, convincing you of this point is not conducive to anything productive (beside uniform usage of terminology), I will leave it at that. I apologize for dragging it on and wasting your time.