NCRegister interview with Bishop Fellay

[tbhamdg]

Did anyone see the three videos of the interview with Bishop Fellay here: ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/video-sspxs-bishop-fellay-speaks-exclusively-to-the-register/?

What do you all think? Sounds like something may happen before too long. Pope Francis seems more open than Cardinal Mueller of the CDF. The latter recently said they would have to affirm everything in Vatican II and the goodness of the post-Vatican II liturgy. But Fellay seems to think Pope Francis won’t demand this.

 

[Tarpeian]

Did anyone see the three videos of the interview with Bishop Fellay here: ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/video-sspxs-bishop-fellay-speaks-exclusively-to-the-register/?

What do you all think? Sounds like something may happen before too long. Pope Francis seems more open than Cardinal Mueller of the CDF. The latter recently said they would have to affirm everything in Vatican II and the goodness of the post-Vatican II liturgy. But Fellay seems to think Pope Francis won’t demand this.

Cardinal Mueller has a history of making statements that makes one scratch their head. Pope Francis will set forth the terms and Bishop Fellay will either accept or decline based on those terms.

 

[commenter]

What do you all think? Sounds like something may happen before too long. Pope Francis seems more open than Cardinal Mueller of the CDF. The latter recently said they would have to affirm everything in Vatican II and the goodness of the post-Vatican II liturgy. But Fellay seems to think Pope Francis won’t demand this.

Actually, there is a bigger issue involved than accepting the liturgy, and Vatican II. In this interview and others Bishop Fellay hints at it. A less “friendly” interviewer would have addressed it directly, to bring it out.

I believe the SSPX is demanding total preservation of the organizational structure - their own chain of command - at all costs. They want the right to keep their own chapels totally separate from the local diocese and bishop. In effect, nothing would change, except they would have a piece of paper.

1. How would this “marriage-in-name-only” benefit the Church?
2. How would this reduce isolation of SSPX families from the local Catholic community?
3. What else would you have asked, if you were conducting the interview?

 

[corsair]

A Personal Prelature would solve most all the problems, along with the right to submit names for new Bishops for the Pope to select, as the need arises.

Most, but not all, of the radical element left the SSPX along with Bp. Williamson. There will always be some that stick around to cause trouble. Ask any Bishop in the establishment church.

Being in communion with Rome will remove any stigma except by those who are angry under any circumstance. SSPX’er are not isolated. No more than FSSP folks who do not switch hit with local parishes.

I’m praying for the reconciliation.

 

[commenter]

A Personal Prelature would solve most all the problems, along with the right to submit names for new Bishops for the Pope to select, as the need arises.

Most, but not all, of the radical element left the SSPX along with Bp. Williamson. There will always be some that stick around to cause trouble. Ask any Bishop in the establishment church.

Being in communion with Rome will remove any stigma except by those who are angry under any circumstance. SSPX’er are not isolated. No more than FSSP folks who do not switch hit with local parishes.

I’m praying for the reconciliation.

Would you agree that maintaining the organizational structure is extremely important for the leadership of SSPX? Maybe more important than questions about Vatican II?

 

[tbhamdg]

Would you agree that maintaining the organizational structure is extremely important for the leadership of SSPX? Maybe more important than questions about Vatican II?

They go hand in hand. Preserving their structure and independence from local bishops guarantees they won’t be pressured to accept mainstream views on Vatican II and the New Mass (or at least keep their own opinions to themselves). This is part of their raison d’etre,

 

[OraLabora]

I believe the SSPX is demanding total preservation of the organizational structure - their own chain of command - at all costs. They want the right to keep their own chapels totally separate from the local diocese and bishop. In effect, nothing would change, except they would have a piece of paper.

Isn’t this more or less how institutions of Pontifical Right (e.g. Benedictines) operate this very day?

 

[ProVobis]

Isn’t this more or less how institutions of Pontifical Right (e.g. Benedictines) operate this very day?

Good point.

I believe they also take up a Peter’s Pence collection for the Pope, inter alia.

 

[commenter]

They go hand in hand. Preserving their structure and independence from local bishops guarantees they won’t be pressured to accept mainstream views on Vatican II and the New Mass (or at least keep their own opinions to themselves). This is part of their raison d’etre,

If a woman talks about wanting to get married, and said she plans to live only in her own apartment, her own separate decisions, her own daily life that does not involve the man, her own marital rights attorney on retainer, and also, that she plans to keep her own bodyguard to protect her from that man, because he is so vicious and dangerous to her…would you advise that man to marry her? Why?

I would advise the woman to find another partner, someone she does not need a bodyguard with. And I would advise the man to find another partner who does not feel the need for such a prenup. Why would you want a reconcilliation that is only pretend, but not in reality - just a piece of paper?

(Aren’t local bishops successors of the apostles? Would you want to be protected from them?) Would it be better if all Catholics were protected from bishops?

I think you are partly concurring with me the enormous priority the SSPX leaders place on preserving the organization. I think it is a bigger issue for the leaders of SSPX than Vatican II.

 

[commenter]

Isn’t this more or less how institutions of Pontifical Right (e.g. Benedictines) operate this very day?

Families in Benedictine parishes are under the local bishop, as their ordinary, as well as their pastor; but families are not under the Benedictine or Jesuit, etc regional superior. In my diocese families (and clergy) in those types of parishes are often involved in broader activities of the local diocese, (but never the priest or laity from the SSPX chapel). The Order priests are maybe autonomous from the local chancery, but not independent of it. When the Jesuits have prayer or ministry among themselves, that is their business, when they involve the laity, there is a some oversight by the bishop, though mostly oversight by the Order, for the priests themselves.

 

[OraLabora]

Families in Benedictine parishes are under the local bishop, as their ordinary, as well as their pastor; but families are not under the Benedictine or Jesuit, etc regional superior. In my diocese families (and clergy) in those types of parishes are often involved in broader activities of the local diocese, (but never the priest or laity from the SSPX chapel). The Order priests are maybe autonomous from the local chancery, but not independent of it. When the Jesuits have prayer or ministry among themselves, that is their business, when they involve the laity, there is a some oversight by the bishop, though mostly oversight by the Order, for the priests themselves.

Yes but not all Benedictine abbeys run parishes or send monks to parishes. Our abbey stopped doing so many decades ago. The laity are still free to attend Mass at the abbey. But of course for other than the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the Eucharist, they have to go to their parish as the abbey does not have faculties for baptism or marriage.

Something similar I suppose could work for the SSPX although they will no doubt want faculties to baptize, marry, etc., and some sort of “deal” would have to be worked out while preserving the independence of their institute yet having limited faculities, assuming it becomes of pontifical right.

 

[commenter]

The laity are still free to attend Mass at the abbey. But of course for other than the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the Eucharist, they have to **go to **their parish as the abbey does not have faculties for baptism or marriage.

Something similar I suppose could work for the SSPX although they will no doubt want faculties to baptize, marry, etc., and some sort of “deal” would have to be worked out while preserving the independence of their institute yet having limited faculities, assuming it becomes of pontifical right.

In my area, Eastern Catholic priests and laity often participate in common, Catholic regional programs for evangelism, religious liberty, etc. This month the prolife meeting might be at the Maronite Church, next month at a Latin rite parish, and the Eastern Catholics and Opus Dei and Latin Rite members all participate. The laity from the SSPX chapel would be welcome, but I have never met any, never heard of any. Laity from the Diocesan TLM are very active in regional prolife.

I work at a mission alongside Eastern Rite Catholics, with help from Eastern and Latin Rite priests. This is far greater local integration than anything SSPX leaders are talking about in the media. My concern is what kind of “reconciliation” would benefit families currently attached to SSPX. Would families benefit from integration?

 

[ProVobis]

In my area, Eastern Catholic priests and laity often participate in common, Catholic regional programs for evangelism, religious liberty, etc. This month the prolife meeting might be at the Maronite Church, next month at a Latin rite parish, and the Eastern Catholics and Opus Dei and Latin Rite members all participate. The laity from the SSPX chapel would be welcome, but I have never met any, never heard of any. Laity from the Diocesan TLM are very active in regional prolife.

And they all end up supporting the same political candidates. Just sayin…

 

[Bartholo]

Very interesting interview. It would be indeed “paradoxical” if Francis was able to reconcile the SSPX.

1. How would this reduce isolation of SSPX families from the local Catholic community?

I guess I see that as the biggest question in all efforts of reconciliation. It seems to be the biggest trouble with the Orthodox as well. I think how the local Bishop reacts to such steps would have the biggest impact on a local level.

 

[Chatter163]

Families in Benedictine parishes are under the local bishop, as their ordinary, as well as their pastor; but families are not under the Benedictine or Jesuit, etc regional superior. In my diocese families (and clergy) in those types of parishes are often involved in broader activities of the local diocese, (but never the priest or laity from the SSPX chapel). The Order priests are maybe autonomous from the local chancery, but not independent of it. When the Jesuits have prayer or ministry among themselves, that is their business, when they involve the laity, there is a some oversight by the bishop, though mostly oversight by the Order, for the priests themselves.

So I then take it that you opposed the creation of the Anglican Ordinariate for the same reason, because they are not under the governance of the local bishop?

 

[commenter]

So I then take it that you opposed the creation of the Anglican Ordinariate for the same reason, because they are not under the governance of the local bishop?

• Their Ordinary is part of, and actively collaborating with, the bench of bishops in the US, and Canada, as well as other countries. The Ordinariate priest in my region is also active in the larger Catholic apostolate of the region.
• Their websites do not condemn the local bishops, nor the bishops of the country in general, nor the pope. Individuals are encouraged to participate in the larger Catholic Action in the region. Families involved in SSPX are constantly warned against most activities of the “Novus Ordo Church”.

In my area, there is no discouragement that I know of, for the SSPX priest or attached laity to involvement in regional Catholic activity. But the only time I heard that priest speak publicly, he was relentlessly hostile to the “Novus Ordo Church”. I can guess the people who attend his chapel, who likely get this message often, are discouraged by him and relentless pro SSPX websites from joining regional prolife, religious liberty, or evangelism efforts. This isolation would not be cured by putting a sign over the SSPX door, “Church approved”.

Thus it is not a question of the attitude of the local bishop to the SSPX organization. It is a question of families who have been isolated by the organization. No papal decree will change that, if the organization is intact. The Ordinariate families are in a very different situation in their local cities. They are pro Magisterium - pro the current pope and bishops. They are autonomous, like the Eastern Catholics who have a bishop elsewhere, but very much integrated, occasionally leading the local Catholic Action, with the Latin Catholics supporting them.

 

[Tarpeian]

In my area, Eastern Catholic priests and laity often participate in common, Catholic regional programs for evangelism, religious liberty, etc. This month the prolife meeting might be at the Maronite Church, next month at a Latin rite parish, and the Eastern Catholics and Opus Dei and Latin Rite members all participate. The laity from the SSPX chapel would be welcome, but I have never met any, never heard of any. Laity from the Diocesan TLM are very active in regional prolife.

I work at a mission alongside Eastern Rite Catholics, with help from Eastern and Latin Rite priests. This is far greater local integration than anything SSPX leaders are talking about in the media. My concern is what kind of “reconciliation” would benefit families currently attached to SSPX. Would families benefit from integration?

“Would families benefit from integration”? That is a good question. One could ask, would NO Catholics benefit from integration as well? Are Catholics who attend SSPX chapels “isolated” from the local Catholic community? I would say no, at least in the sense that a parish community in town “A”, is “isolated” from a parish community in town “B” 10 miles away.

If I use my home parish as an example, families in general worship there as opposed to parish “B”, because there are at times, glaring differences in how The Faith is presented. In my 46 years, I’ve witnessed many people leave my home parish, and go to another parish where The Faith is presented differently in substance. Many at my parish continue to speak, interact, and evangelize as the opportunity permits.

In my experience with the SSPX community I find that their “isolation,” in regards to NO parishes is no different. Until the fundamentals of The Faith are presented uniformly at the pastoral level, and Catholics in the pew (especially everyone who has received Confirmation) learn their Faith as it has been taught for 2000 years, this dynamic will continue. I think prudence dictates it must.

 

[commenter]

“Would families benefit from integration”? That is a good question. One could ask, would NO Catholics benefit from integration as well? Are Catholics who attend SSPX chapels “isolated” from the local Catholic community? I would say no, at least in the sense that a parish community in town “A”, is “isolated” from a parish community in town “B” 10 miles away.

If I use my home parish as an example, families in general worship there as opposed to parish “B”, because there are at times, glaring differences in how The Faith is presented. In my 46 years, I’ve witnessed many people leave my home parish, and go to another parish where The Faith is presented differently in substance. Many at my parish continue to speak, interact, and evangelize as the opportunity permits.

In my experience with the SSPX community I find that their “isolation,” in regards to NO parishes is no different. Until the fundamentals of The Faith are presented uniformly at the pastoral level, and Catholics in the pew (especially everyone who has received Confirmation) learn their Faith as it has been taught for 2000 years, this dynamic will continue. I think prudence dictates it must.

When my children were young, I prudently sought out good Catholic things in my area, and tried to avoid bad things, for them and myself.

The SSPX chapel began 40 years ago, when there was no TLM, and the diocese was far more liberal than present. The SSPX, in 2016, tend to be isolated from local bad things, which we still have,** and** also avoid all the local good Catholic things, too. They sort of built a “fort” to deal with the diocese of 1976, and that fort is still the only way the SSPX can respond, in 2016. I believe children brought up in that environment will not be on guard against Catholic abuses, they will regard all Catholic authority as “abuse”.

Organizations formed for a particular purpose later tend to fight for their survival, much more than for their original purpose. They keep finding new purposes to justify their organization. There is 100% chance the SSPX will find reason to oppose the next pope, the next bishop, the next anything from the Magisterium. It would be prudent for orthodox Catholics to read the real St. Pius X writings on (unified) Catholic Action - local, national, international. Put that into today’s context, with secular attacks on religious liberty, prolife, and marriage. How should a prudent person respond to the secular attacks? Who is leading the defense in your city? In my city, it is my bishop, and those in union with him.

 

[Lormar]

It never occurred to me before how fortuitous it has been and is that they [the SSPX] haven’t gone off the deep end at one point of their existence.

Bishop Fellay is very wise. He knows they can’t continue on as they have been.

His hardest battle will be with the faithful in their chapel pews.

 

[Lormar]

I love the pointed questions Edward Pentin asked Bishop Fellay as well. Many of those questions were what I was wondering as well.

Thank you for posting the link to these videos. I enjoyed the three of them very much!