Posted on 08/29/2005 5:53:18 AM PDT by NYer
Fellay doesn't need me to reiterate what he already knows.
"STATEMENT OF BISHOP FELLAY
to SSPX Members & Friends
January 22, 2001
In August, at the end of last summer's pilgrimage to Rome, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had a first direct contact with the Society's Bishops.
During the month of November the same Cardinal, under a mandate from Pope John Paul II, invited the Superior General to come to see him "to prepare a visit with the Pope".
On December 29, Cardinal Castrillon proposed to Bishop Fellay different elements that could serve towards a possible agreement between Rome and the Society. The Superior General expressed his point of view, his distrust, his apprehension. (Although never before had Rome gone so far in favor of Tradition).
On December 30, for a few seconds, the Superior General saw the Pope in his private chapel. (No words of importance were exchanged).
On January 13 there was a special meeting of the General Council, of the Society's Bishops and of the delegate of Bishop Rangel, at which were established the principles to guide us in the present situation.
On January 16, there was another meeting with Cardinal Castrillon, during which the Superior General exposed the necessity of having guaranties from Rome before going ahead in the details of eventual discussions or an agreement:
That the Tridentine Mass be granted to all priests of the entire world
That the censures against the Bishops be declared null."
From Bishop Fellay's interview 3 months after the election of B16
Bp Fellay: If we may make a comparison, before his elevation to the sovereign pontificate the Church was in free fall, Benedict XVI will open a parachute, and there will be a certain slowing down. A slowing down more or less significant depending on the size of the parachute. But the orientation remains the same. May we hope for more than this deceleration? The promises of Our Lord always hold true. And the good Lord uses everything to make His Church go where He wants it to.
Here I will give you my personal opinion: if Benedict XVI were pushed against the wall, in a crisis situation, faced with a very violent reaction from the progressivists or a political crisis, or persecutions, I think – from observing how he has acted and reacted up to now – that he would make the right choice.
Here are some facts:
- With his appointment as bishop of Munich, in 1977, whereas he had previously only been a professor of theology, he entered the sphere of reality and was obliged to forbid one of his friends to accept a chair of theology at the university. This earned him the hostility of his former friends.
- In France, in 1983, he reaffirmed that the catechism in force was the Roman catechism, i.e. that of the Council of Trent. And he had to brave the anger of the bishops of France.
- We know that Cardinal Ratzinger was against the interreligious meeting of Assisi in 1986 and did not attend it. The second time, in 2002, though still opposed to it, he was forced to attend. Several times he tendered his resignation as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith because of disagreements with the pope, notably over Assisi.
- The Charter of Cologne, in 1989, signed by 500 theologians against the Roman magisterium, gathered together the great majority of the Catholic intellectual elite of the time. They openly manifested their hostility to Rome and to the magisterium. Subsequently the cardinal wrote some documents on the new theology. In a very perceptive and realistic description he showed the extent of the gravity of the situation. Unfortunately the remedies he proposed did not match up to the diagnosis, and in fact, were virtually non-existent.
Now that Cardinal Ratzinger is pope, we may expect that, considering the gravity of the situation, Rome may turn its eyes towards all those attached to the old Mass. Two currents are emerging: one in support the Society of Saint Pius X, the other which sets itself to reinforce Ecclesia Dei and cause the Society to crumble away. It seems that this latter has prevailed. There will certainly be two levels of action. We will see a reinforcement giving more weight to the support of those who want the old Mass. There will also be a reinforcement at the level of the Ecclesia Dei groups. But here, we see that everything works unto our good and that of Tradition; in the end, the good God uses the Fraternity of Saint Peter as a trampoline for the Society of Saint Pius X. In this way, we can but rejoice over any opening in favor of the old Mass.
DICI: If you were received by the pope, what would you ask him?
Bp Fellay: I would ask him for the freedom of the Mass for everybody and everywhere. As for our personal situation, there will also be the issue of recanting the decree of excommunication related to the consecrations. These are two pre-conditions which we can not dissociate from any further doctrinal discussion. We know very well that the issue of the Mass is not all, but we must begin with something concrete; we must begin with a beginning. It would be a deep and efficacious breach in the progressivist system; this would gradually lead to a change of atmosphere and spirit in the Church.
A head of a dicastery in Rome, seeing our processions during the Holy Year 2000, exclaimed: "But they are Catholic, we are obliged to do something for them". There are still bishops and cardinals who are Catholic, but the evil is so widespread that Rome no longer dares to take up the surgeon’s knife.
We see clearly that the Church is going through the same agony as Our Lord on the cross. I wonder whether the third part of the message of Fatima does not deal with an apparent death of the Church. We are living through an unprecedented situation, but the grace of God is still powerful. We can live in a Christian manner. We can still show that the Catholic religion exists, and that we can still live it. And this living example of Tradition carries much weight in our relations with Rome.
For Ecône is not against Rome, as the journalists would have it. We share with Pope Benedict XVI the same realization of the dramatic situation of the Church. And how could we not be in agreement on this point when we see the drop in vocations: in Dublin, Ireland, last year it seems there were not a single young man who entered the seminary! A year or two ago, there were only seven Jesuits who took their final vows in the whole congregation! But Rome does not go back to the cause of those effects which everybody sees, because that would be tantamount to questioning the Council. Rome must find again its own Tradition. Of course, it is not we who convert, only God can do that; but we may bring our little stone to the restoration, we must do what we can. We must make people understand that Tradition is not some archeological state of things; it is the normal state of the Church, even today.
We can also present the ecclesiastical authorities with theological studies on the Council. This takes time. Then, there is major work to be done among the bishops and priests. There are many faithful who are ready to take up Tradition again, many more than we think. For the priests, it is more difficult. Those who are as old as the Council, those who gave up everything and set out upon this adventure are no longer capable of going back. The younger priests are more open.
Exactly.
In other words, the Pope goofed?
OK, make sure that you're sitting down,I know this may shake your whole moral foundation, but yes it happens. Popes can goof. Popes can also make canonical decisions based on politics or other motives instead of truth and justice. Unfortunately it has happened before. Did you know that one pope excommunicated a whole city, the city of Florence? Although the Church restricted them from the sacraments (and in that way they suffered "excommunication") do you think that each and every citizen was guilty in reality and in the eyes of God, so that they also suffered "excommunication" in the spiritual sense?
The penitent confesses his sin, expresses sorrow and is absolved.
Now there is no way for the Archbishop Lefebvre to do this, and the nullification his "excommunication" is included in the request And why would someone express sorrow and ask forgiveness for a crime they are not guilty of? Wouldn't that be like lying?
Think of an innocent man wrongly convicted, even by the highest court. He suffers legally by going to jail, his reputation is irreparably damaged, and the public accepts him as "guilty". However, in reality and in the eyes of God he is never guilty, he remains innocent.
You guys want it the other way around?
I am not the SSPX, nor one of the bishops of the SSPX. Pope Benedict XVI can formally acknowledge it or not, the reality of the invalidity of the "excommunications" will not change.
This is the real question though, if this pope or a future pope does acknowledge that the "excommunications" were invalid are you going to accept it? Are you going to feel sorry for how you spoke about the SSPX bishops?
The "reality?"
You're saying that it doesn't matter what Benedict XVI or the Church says on this matter? They're invalid, period?
Is this some sort of official proclamation?
This is the real question though, if this pope or a future pope does acknowledge that the "excommunications" were invalid are you going to accept it? Are you going to feel sorry for how you spoke about the SSPX bishops?
If this Pope or a future Pope decides such, I'll have absolutely no problem with that decision. If a Pope is humble enough to admit error, I'd certainly be prepared to do so.
I think this comment says more about you than it does about me. Admissions of error are only a problem for the proud.
Is this what happened at Campos?
Were the excommunications proclaimed invalid?
Or were the excommunicandi received back as returning penitents?
Makes things much more difficult.
I guess that's one reason why the meeting lasted a little over 30 minutes.
I probably shouldn't be waiting for the Pope to soon recant the excommunication of Martin Luther then?
Yes.
You're saying that it doesn't matter what Benedict XVI or the Church says on this matter?
Oh no it does matter. As long as the pope allows this to go on these men suffer a grave injustice, like the falsely convicted man suffers every day he is imprisoned. As well as the injury to their good names, which may never be fully restored.
They're [the excommunications] are invalid, period?
Yes.
Is this some sort of official proclamation?
No, it's the correct application of canon law, much like the correct application of the Constitution in no way gives any woman the "right" to murder her unborn child. Does one have to be a member of the court to know that?
If this Pope or a future Pope decides such, I'll have absolutely no problem with that decision. If a Pope is humble enough to admit error, I'd certainly be prepared to do so.
I'm glad to hear that. Mostly I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge the possibility for a pope to be in error in this matter, (however remote you think that possibility.)
Is this what happened at Campos?
I'm not really sure. I'm not knowledgeable about all the details in Campos. I do remember reading that the specifics of the situation of the Campos bishop were not exactly the same. Perhaps Gerard knows more.
That's like comparing apples to oranges. Martin Luther was not excommunicated for an act of disobedience (falsely interpreted to mean the denial of papal primacy), Martin Luther obstinately denied doctrine. The SSPX do no such thing.
You're saying that if the guy who makes canon law, essentially the regent of the Catholic Church here on earth absent Jesus Christ, says you're excommunicated, but doesn't dot the 'i' or cross the 't' it's not a valid excommunication? That's gibberish.
And I'm about as SSPX-friendly as you can get without drinking the kool-aid.
In other words, you believe in the invented doctrine of papal impeccability. Don't you?
The relevant passage:
In this document, the Union will be canonically established as a personal Apostolic Administration, directly dependent upon this Apostolic See and with territory in the Diocese of Campos. It will be a cumulative jurisdiction with that of the local Ordinary. Its governance will be entrusted to you, Venerable Brother, and your succession will be assured.
The faculty of the Apostolic Administration to celebrate the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours according to the Roman Rite and the liturgical discipline codified by my Predecessor St Pius V, with the adaptations introduced by his Successors up to Bl. John XXIII, will also be confirmed.
Thus with deep joy, in order to effect full communion, we declare the remission of the censure referred to in can. 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, in all that concerns you, Venerable Brother and, likewise, the remission of all censures and the dispensation from all irregularities incurred by other Members of the Union.
"Remission" would seem to me to indicate not that the original excommunication was invalid or null but rather that it has been removed and is no longer in force.
It's the former that you guys want, right?
I'm saying a pope can be in error in his application of canon law, I'm not quite sure what you think I'm saying. Do you think that popes are protected from error with regard to application of canon law?
I was going to ignore this, but I just can't. This is supposed to be some kind of dig at me. You implying that unlike you, I lack humility. Hey, you may possess many more virtues than I do. I freely admit to being lacking in many virtues, guilty as charged, but I'm working on it.
However Archbishop Lefebvre did not and the other SSPX bishops do not lack humility anymore than the falsely convicted man lacks humility by maintaining his innocence from withing his prison cell.
I think all of them show extreme patience while they endure this injustice, as well as the insults and calumny fostered by the "lay magisterium" and lay apologists.
No, you've both gone much further than that.
You're not saying that a Pope can be in error.
You're both saying that he most definitely is in error. Without any question. You called it "a reality."
You're saying that he's wrong and you're right.
His own Canon law says it, as well as many canon lawyers (who told him so).
Listen marshmallow, Archbishop Lefebvre, and the bishops he consecrated were a few of the remaining churchmen that actually believe EENS and that hell is real. Do you really think that they would, (which the charge claims they did) do something with the intent of separating themselves from the Church? It's just absurd.
However, I do know this. The consecration of bishops is not something which can be separated from the Holy See. You know this. I know this. The people involved knew this. To consecrate bishops illicitly does separate you from the Church. If it doesn't, what does?
That's why it carries a latae sententiae penalty. Do it and you're doomed. It's nothing personal against SSPX. You weren't singled out for an extraordinary excommunication which is what you seem to be alleging. The same thing happened to Thuc at Palmar de Troya.
Trying to judge their intentions is an area fraught with danger.
Yet that is exactly what JPII did in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei.
However, I do know this. The consecration of bishops is not something which can be separated from the Holy See.
Obviously the procedures have changed due to circumstances in the world and the Church. History is replete with consecrations of bishops without the individual knowledge of the Pope. Any number of groups separated (geographically and circumstantially) have had to take it upon themselves to preserve the faith.
You know this. I know this. The people involved knew this. To consecrate bishops illicitly does separate you from the Church.
No it doesn't. Trespassing is a law designed to protect your property and person. It it not meant to prevent someone from running across your lawn with a hose in order to put the fire out when its burning down. If that were the case the law's purpose would be to let your house burn down.
If it doesn't, what does?
Ask the Orthodox and the Protestants. They don't appeal to the Pope for anything. They don't believe he has the rights he has.
By contrast the SSPX is asking for clear resolutions under the protection of papal infallibility on doctrinal issues. They are asking for canonical justice where there has been canonical injustice. If they were truly separate, they wouldn't bother to deal with the Pope.
The papacy is a monarchy. They don't call it the Holy Roman Empire for nothing. When the monarch exiles you, it doesn't matter if you disagree with the writ of exile, you're kicked out. You know what the tiara on the papal arms means, right? (I guess Benedict the XVI opted not to keep the tiara, but that's a new thing.)
When an innocent man is wrongly convicted he suffers the consequences of being imprisoned, yet he remains innocent and suffers no spiritual penalty in the eyes of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.