NCRegister interview with Bishop Fellay

  • Thread starter Thread starter tbhamdg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eventually we will, by the Grace of God, learn who was right and who was wrong between the Archbishop and the reformers. What i find saddening is the level of vitriol thrown at a group of Catholics who seem to mostly just wish to follow the totality of the Faith.
 
Pulvis said:
What i find saddening is the level of vitriol thrown at a group of Catholics who seem to mostly just wish to follow the totality of the Faith.
Click to expand...
Following the totality of the faith would also mean obedience to the Holy Father and Magisterium. This is manifestly not the case. Hence they are leading their adherents astray.
 
Pulvis said:
Eventually we will, by the Grace of God, learn who was right and who was wrong between the Archbishop and the reformers. What i find saddening is the level of vitriol thrown at a group of Catholics who seem to mostly just wish to follow the totality of the Faith.
Click to expand...
There is no need for “eventually.” We are talking about the effects of an ecumenical council. Pope Paul VI, who stripped Lefebvre of all ministry, is beatified. Pope John Paul II, who published the excommunication against those guilty of the schismatic act, is canonised. The Pope who called the ecumenical council, at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, is also canonised.

The day after the schismatic act was committed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer and those they ordained bishop, Saint John Paul II wrote:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.

It is tragic that Marcel Lefebvre did not understand, as the other bishops in the world did, that he lived one of the most extraordinary moments in the Church’s history as a Council Father and that the reform and restoration of the liturgy, mandated by the Council and born of the Liturgical Movement that spanned the 20th century, was a singular gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church to be embraced with profound gratitude.

Marcel Lefebvre had one duty as a bishop above all others: to yield to the head of the college of bishops. He should have yielded also to his theological betters within the college of bishops who were Council Fathers with him.

The key point against the Lefebvrites remains what Saint John Paul II wrote:
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.
 
commenter said:
There is a workable solution in place right now.
Click to expand...
Yes, but would it work for every diocese? I’m sorry but I when I hear of bishops closing and merging parishes to pay off debt and other matters, I can see some hesitancy of turning over chapels, nursing homes, schools, and what not over to the same diocese. I mean, let’s deal with reality here. It would be nice to have everything under one bishop and have a flourishing church with single goals, such as with pro-life and the other things you mentioned, but the liturgy alone seems to have created major irreparable divisions. Let’s not kid ourselves with Summorum Pontificum solving all problems.
 
OraLabora said:
Following the totality of the faith would also mean obedience to the Holy Father and Magisterium. This is manifestly not the case. Hence they are leading their adherents astray.
Click to expand...
Is that alone sufficient for them to be considered outside of Communion with the Holy See.

Several of the women religious involved with “Nuns on the Bus” have made statements rejecting Magisterial teachings on same sex marriage and abortion. I would agree that they too are leading their adherents astray, but does it mean that they are no longer Catholic religious? That they are no longer within the Catholic Church?

Is the standard that any religious congregation that deviates from any Magisterial teaching no longer part of the Church? Or not welcome within it?
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, but would it work for every diocese? I’m sorry but I when I hear of bishops closing and merging parishes to pay off debt and other matters, I can see some hesitancy of turning over chapels, nursing homes, schools, and what not over to the same diocese. I mean, let’s deal with reality here. It would be nice to have everything under one bishop and have a flourishing church with single goals, such as with pro-life and the other things you mentioned, but the liturgy alone seems to have created major irreparable divisions. Let’s not kid ourselves with Summorum Pontificum solving all problems.
Click to expand...
Your post is a response to my earlier suggestion that some SSPX individuals are already reconciling, by returning to their diocese, joining a parish, and selecting good diocesan programs, avoiding bad diocesan programs. But I am looking at solutions from the viewpoint of the** family**. For them, the “family come in when you are ready” option seems preferable to waiting for a “One size fits all” directive in terms of reducing isolation.

Even if there is a large, active SSPX chapel, I doubt you will find many places where the chapel has a greater quantity of **orthodox **programs than the diocese, even if you avoid the diocesan programs you don’t like.

You raise real concerns over property. But separate chapels were never intended to be a goal in themselves, were they? The Archbishop and early leaders were primarily focused on the Catholic Church, and they had worked for the Church far more than they had worked for the SSPX. In the 1970s, I don’t think they anticipated a separate “SSPX Heritage”, a separate SSPX tradition and momentum of its own.

In 2016 it is mostly a different organization, with leaders and seminary professors who never worked or trained in the Catholic Church. Reading their leaders’ defense of some kind of merger proposal, their focus is so little on the Catholic Church in general, or SSPX families, but on maintaining the total independence of their organization. In fact they have to defend themselves against attacks by The Resistance claims to be the authentic SSPX Tradition (is there such a thing?) and accuses Bishop Fellay of wanting to cooperate with the Catholic Church. The Bishop denies any plan for much cooperation. (Again, where do families fit into any of the plans of the SSPX, or Resistance?)

If SSPX families join a parish and diocese, they will have access to far greater facilities than the chapel. I wish the diocese would actively reach out more to welcome SSPX families, beyond offering the EF. The Resistance is doing that, occasionally working locally, to woo some away from the SSPX chapel.
 
commenter said:
You raise real concerns over property. But separate chapels were never intended to be a goal in themselves, or permanent, were they?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends. People like Mel Gibson et al have these chapels built for a reason. In fairness, though, I don’t know if these chapels were built or bought only for FSSPX priests.
 
ProVobis said:
I guess that depends. People like Mel Gibson et al have these chapels built for a reason. In fairness, though, I don’t know if these chapels were built or bought only for FSSPX priests.
Click to expand...
Isn’t Gibson (or rather his father) a Sedevacantist? It might not be fair to compare such chapels to those of the SSPX, who do not reject the Pope outright.
 
Brendan said:
Is that alone sufficient for them to be considered outside of Communion with the Holy See

Several women religious involved with “Nuns on the Bus” have made statements rejecting Magisterial teachings on same sex marriage and abortion. I would agree that they too are leading their adherents astray, but does it mean that they are no longer Catholic religious? That they are no longer within the Catholic Church?

Is the standard that any religious congregation that deviates from any Magisterial teaching no longer part of the Church? Or not welcome within it?
Click to expand...
I’m glad to explain the difference

The American Women Religious underwent a years long investigation and were found in compliance by the Holy See and are affirmed; they’re assuredly in communion

The investigation was completed to the satisfaction of the Holy See. By such determination, all Catholics MUST recognise without choice that these Religious are in communion with the Holy See

apostolicvisitation.org/en/index.html
*Apostolic Visitation of Institutes of Women Religious in the United States

Catholic Sisters have contributed in manifold, generous ways to building up the Church in the United States since our nation’s earliest days. With respect for these good works and genuine concern for the women religious who perform them, the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has sought an Apostolic Visitation “in order to look into the quality of the life” of women religious in the United States

The Apostolic Visitation is complete and all reports have been submitted to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Mother Clare Millea’s mandate is complete /…/ The Apostolic Visitation office has closed*
The rule of the CA Forum:
Any religious institute that is in communion with the Church is orthodox.
And, since you have specified certain individuals:
Making any negative statements about our bishops, deacons, priests, sisters or religious brothers is not allowed
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6487

The SSPX to the contrary have been declared by the Holy See as having a completely different situation and that judgment must be accepted by every Catholic as binding:

Pope John Paul II:
*With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail

/…/

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act

/…/

The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium*
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Pope Benedict XVI:
*I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step /…/

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church*
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

By generous gift of the Pope, granted motu proprio, he made a special provision such that the absolutions granted by SSPX priests, who are adherents to a schismatic act by the very fact of their ordination, are supplied with that necessary so that they will not lack validity to absolve. Otherwise, for wont of faculties, the absolutions of SSPX priests are invalid. The Pope, by his immediate and universal jurisdiction, is making these celebrations of the sacrament of reconciliation to have an effect they otherwise would not have. It’s incredibly magnanimous…not in favour of the priests but in favour of the penitents so their confessions would not be invalid
  • Every marriage by an SSPX cleric is invalid by the law itself since they lack any grant of jurisdiction and are actually deprived of any possibility of jurisdiction
  • Every baptism is illicit
  • Every Mass they celebrate & every Communion they administer is illicit
  • Every sacrament, blessing, & even presentation of themselves as capable of ministering is illicit since each is actually suspended a divinis
 
RPRPsych said:
Isn’t Gibson (or rather his father) a Sedevacantist? It might not be fair to compare such chapels to those of the SSPX, who **do not reject the Pope **outright.
Click to expand...
Within SSPX there is a wide range of “rejecting the Pope”, and bishops. Families are being told this man is technically a pope, or that man is, in a way, their bishop, but distrust everything they say. Families may see a picture of Pope Francis and Bishop Jones in the chapel hallway, but to them Francis is just a placeholder, a pope but not The Pope. They don’t benefit from the local bishop-ordinary, or diocese, in any way. From the family’s point of view, this is not much practical difference from formal sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is not an on/off switch, it is a continuum, both re: the Pope, and the local bishop-ordinary.

Again, there is increasing range of views within SSPX. GiusseppeTO, the father of an SSPX priest, has posted about a cordial relationship between his chapel and the local cathedral. At the other extreme of the continuum, the Resistance is not only debunking Pope Francis but now Bishop Fellay as well. In between there are various opinions and positions, none relying on the Magisterium or the diocese to help conversion or spiritual growth.
 
RPRPsych said:
Isn’t Gibson (or rather his father) a Sedevacantist? It might not be fair to compare such chapels to those of the SSPX, who do not reject the Pope outright.
Click to expand...
Maybe but I wonder if being an SV or not is much of a “deal breaker” in the entire scheme of things. Commenter has correctly pointed out that there is no clear distinction between or within some of these groups.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
After four decades of witnessing this? No. Not in my estimation at all.

Actually, my opinion of Lefebvre, as well as the men he picked to succeed him, could not possibly be lower. My opinion of him only declined between 1975 and 1989 and then, finally, when he died in 1991.

On the other hand, the two great men Lefebvre opposed are now respectively beatified and canonised…Lefebvre was a man who fought one of the greatest ecumenical council’s in the Church’s history, after the fact, as well as two of the greatest saints to ever occupy the chair of Peter. That says it all. And that must never forgotten.

I actually have positive memories of him, once upon a time. He had made positive contributions to the Church in Africa. How sad that he fell so far and came to such a sad, pitiful, and dreadful end after being excommunicated. As Saint John Paul II said the day after Marcel Lefebvre’s schismatic act: “The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.” It is, as the saint wrote that day, a cautionary tale.

Very little to show? In a few months, I will be co-presiding with a Lutheran Cleric at a joint Catholic Lutheran ceremony during a year long observance to commemorate the Reformation that Catholic Churches around the globe will be participating in. I lived that dialogue for decades and am incredibly delighted with the fruit.

Of my whole priesthood and my decades on theological dialogue, I consider the Catholic commemorations with the Lutherans for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation to be a crowning moment of my life’s work in this field…but one would also need to speak of the Joint Declaration on Justification, the reassessment of history and the new lenses by which we view the history of the Reformation using the new methodologies of historical study and analysis…and the amazing document that will carry forward the dialogue: From Conflict to Communion.

As for the term “separated brethren” I think what Pope Saint John Paul II said in par. 42 of Ut Unum Sint says it very well indeed.
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.
In my work, that quote is always precisely one I turned to.
Click to expand...
A couple of questions for Fr.:
  1. Will there be any effort for the conversion of this pastor?
  2. Are Lutherans better off than people who attend or the clerics of the SSPX?
  3. Is your opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre lower than that of Martin Luther?
  4. If we’re commemorating 500 years post reformation, would you be as uneasy (as some of us are about the previous commemoration) if there was a 50 year commemoration of the 1988 consecrations?
 
commenter said:
Within SSPX there is a wide range of “rejecting the Pope”, and bishops. Families are being told this man is technically a pope, or that man is, in a way, their bishop, but distrust everything they say. Families may see a picture of Pope Francis and Bishop Jones in the chapel hallway, but to them Francis is just a placeholder, a pope but not The Pope. They don’t benefit from the local bishop-ordinary, or diocese, in any way. From the family’s point of view, this is not much practical difference from formal sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is not an on/off switch, it is a continuum, both re: the Pope, and the local bishop-ordinary.

Again, there is increasing range of views within SSPX. GiusseppeTO, the father of an SSPX priest, has posted about a cordial relationship between his chapel and the local cathedral. At the other extreme of the continuum, the Resistance is not only debunking Pope Francis but now Bishop Fellay as well. In between there are various opinions and positions, none relying on the Magisterium or the diocese to help conversion or spiritual growth.
Click to expand...
Good points. 👍 That is one of the sad effects of staying away from the parent tree: further fragmentation. In fact one can make an almost direct one-to-one comparison with what happened with Luther’s rebellion
  • the parent group which is “closest” to the Church (Lutherans - SSPX “proper”)
  • the rigorist, legalistic, fatalistic break-off (Calvinists / Reformed - Sedevacantists, Resistance Movement)
  • the really way-out splinter groups (Mennonites, Anabaptists, etc - “Pope Michael”, “Mary is God and God the Father is a Jewish fraud”, etc.)
(Note, this is NOT to imply that the SSPX is Protestant. Their theology is Catholic. They are Catholics. I’m just struck by how the process of fragmentation, once you leave the “bosom of the Church”, is quite similar in both cases. :()
 
OldYoungGuy said:
A couple of questions for Fr.:
  1. Will there be any effort for the conversion of this pastor?
  2. Are Lutherans better off than people who attend or the clerics of the SSPX?
  3. Is your opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre lower than that of Martin Luther?
  4. If we’re commemorating 500 years post reformation, would you be as uneasy (as some of us are about the previous commemoration) if there was a 50 year commemoration of the 1988 consecrations?
Click to expand...
I’m no cheerleader for either the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre, but I thought St. Paul told us that charity begins with the members of the household of our faith?

And so much for the gospel of the prodigal son. I can see that the SSPX will be receiving a frigid “welcome home!” from not a few. They ought to warm their hearts. :o
 
Don_Ruggero said:
The Apostolic Visitation is complete and all reports have been submitted to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Mother Clare Millea’s mandate is complete /…/ The Apostolic Visitation office has closed[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
I do not remember questioning the Apostolic Visitation in any of my posts
The rule of the CA Forum:
Any religious institute that is in communion with the Church is orthodox.
Click to expand...
What I was asking is that if the SSPX exhibited the same level obedience as other Catholics would certainly ARE in communion, would they be considered to be in communion, so my question was more in regards to the SSPX obtaining full communion status than anything else
And, since you have specified certain individuals:
Making any negative statements about our bishops, deacons, priests, sisters or religious brothers is not allowed
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6487
Click to expand...
What I made were factual statements about such persons, and in a way that did not deny their membership or communion in the Catholic Church.

For example, stating that Sr. Joan Chittister elected to speak at a conference of those seeking women’s ordination, despite a Vatican order to the contrary.

That would be a factual statement.

Similarly, if someone stated that Archbishop Lefebvre illicitly ordained men to the Episcopate; that likewise would be a factual statement, and not a violation of CA policy on negative statements regarding clergy or religious. It is an objective truth, a historical reality.

Conversely, if I had stated that Sr. Mary So-and-So forgot to cross herself at Mass today, so she isn’t really Catholic, that would be a violation. 😉
 
Don_Ruggero said:
No. You are very wrong. It’s not complicated. Obedience is not complicated. Obedience is the key for any ecclesiastic to the will of God

Lefebvre received order after order from the Vicar of Christ. His one duty and his one obligation was to obey. The response is straightforward: “Yes, Holiness”

He not only refused to obey, he not only refused the various offers of mercy from the person of the Pope, he flaunted his disobedience. Not an obedience owed by the lowliest member of the Church but of a member of the College of Bishops to the Head of that College

He crossed the line long before he was excommunicated. He was suspended from all exercise of ANY priestly ministry in 1976. He reacted with contempt for the Vicar of Christ and flaunted his disregard; he used sophistry, that I will describe if asked, in justifying a depraved disobedience to the visible head of the Church.
Click to expand...
Pardon me for truncating your post, but I wanted to highlight this bit. This is the thing that I think gets overlooked by many who otherwise sympathize with the SSPX. The SSPX challenge the very authority of the Church and the Pope to say what the Church teaches. Anyone who checks out my posts here will quickly find that I disagree with the Church on a number of issues. I am quite certain, Father, that you and I would disagree strongly on the correctness of my stance on those points. But I do not contest the authority of the Church to say what the Church is, and what the Church teaches, or the authority of the Pope to pronounce same. The Church can handle dialog, even robust dialog. I think the Church needs robust and difficult discussion of issues (you may differ). I think the Church is wrong about some things (again, you may differ). But when one questions the authority of the Church herself to say what the Church is, and what the Church teaches, and who has the authority to pronounce those things, that passes another bar, in my view.

I think the SSPX must accept the full authority of the Church, the Pope and the Council. That is what the ongoing dispute is really about. The Church could tolerate a difference of opinion on the best form for the Mass, and even on the role of ecumenism and (some) of the other issues. The Church cannot, and should not, abide a dispute over the very identity of the Church.
 
–So does he see the Vatican’s outreach as a vindication of what the SSPX has stood for over the past decades?
“I see it as a step,” Bishop Fellay said, “which proves how right we were, which is not yet the end by any means.” Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/sspxs-bishop-fellay-little-by-little-rome-is-giving-us-all-we-need-for-reco/#ixzz4AviN6bxu

I would like to see the SSPX return to full communion with the Church. But, from this interview, I get the impression that they have not changed their position at all. The bishop still seems to believe that the SSPX is entirely right, and that the Church is now coming around to its position. But, if I recall correctly, SSPX rejected Vatican II, or at least significant parts of it. Others may have quibbled about liturgical changes, but SSPX rejected the Council. How can a society continue to reject an Ecumenical Council of the Church while remaining a part of it?

SSPX would have simply ceased to exist through attrition if Archbishop Lefebvre had not directly defied the pope by consecrating additional SSPX bishops who then continued to ordain SSPX priests.
 
TMC said:
That is what the ongoing dispute is really about.
Click to expand...
Is it? Seems to me the SSPX wouldn’t be where they are without some extremely generous benefactors. Perhaps some questions could be directed at them for why they continue to support an organization where in one case (Pittsburgh) they actually had enough to buy up the very property the bishop had previously sold to another party.
 
ProVobis said:
Is it? Seems to me the SSPX wouldn’t be where they are without some extremely generous benefactors. Perhaps some questions could be directed at them for why they continue to support an organization where in one case (Pittsburgh) they actually had enough to buy up the very property the bishop had previously sold to another party.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.

I agree that the SSPX has its supporters, but I don’t see how that changes the nature of the dispute with the Church. I don’t know the motivation of the supporters, if that is what you are referring to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top