Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer
Note from Papabile
This is an extremely long post. I was told this interview with Fellay was carried on DICI, but I cannot find it. I post it here to simply air that which is public. It is not an endorsement or support for the SSPX's position.
D.I.C.I.: Your Excellency, you requested the audience with Pope Benedict XVI that took place last August 29. What was the purpose of your request?
Bishop Fellay: We wanted to meet the Holy Father because we are Catholic and, as every Catholic, we are attached to Rome. We wanted to show, in requesting this audience quite simply that we are Catholic.
Our recognition of the Pope is not limited only to mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass, as do all the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. It is normal that we should express our respect as being Catholic and roman. Catholic means universal, and the Mystical Body of the Church does not just consist in our chapels.
There was likewise on our part the plan to remind once more the Sovereign Pontiff of the existence of Tradition. Ours is the concern to remind him that Tradition is the Church, and that we incarnate the Church’s Tradition in a manner that is very much alive. We want to show that the Church would be much stronger in today’s world if it maintained Tradition. Thus, we want to put forward our experience: if the Church desires to escape the tragic crisis that it is presently going through, then Tradition is a response, indeed the only response, to this crisis.
D.I.C.I.: How did this audience go?
BISHOP FELLAY: The audience took place in the Popes’ summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. Foreseen for 11:30 a.m., it actually began at 12:10 p.m. in the Sovereign Pontiff’s office. He generally grants an audience of 15 minutes to a bishop. For us, it last 35 minutes. This means, so say the Vatican specialists, that Benedict XVI wanted to show his interest in these questions.
There were four of us: the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Father Schmidberger and myself. The conversation took place in French – contrary to the announcement of certain persons that it would take place in German. It was directed by the Pope in a kindly spirit. He described three difficulties, in response to the letter that we had sent to him shortly before the audience. Benedict XVI was aware of this letter, and it was not necessary to go over the points brought up in it. We there outlined a description of the Church, quoting the “silent apostasy” of John-Paul II, “the boat which is taken in water from every side” and “the dictatorship of relativism” of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with as an appendix of photos of Masses quite as scandalous as one another.
We also gave a presentation of the Society with a list of numbers and different projects. We quoted two examples of actions led by the Society in the present world, and the unbelievable attitude of the local episcopacies in their regard: the law suit in Argentina that obtained that the sale of contraceptives is not forbidden, and which merited for us to be called terrorists by the bishop of Cordoba, and the denunciation of gay pride procession in Lucerne, that finished in the Catholic church by a Protestant ceremony with total indifference on the part of the bishop.
Finally, we expressed our requests: the changing of the attitude of hostility towards Tradition, which attitude makes the traditional Catholic life (Is there any other?) practically impossible in the conciliar church. We requested that this be done by granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass, by silencing the accusation of schism directed against us, by burying the pretended excommunications, and by founding a structure for the family of Tradition within the Church.
D.I.C.I.: Is it possible for us to know the difficulties raised by Benedict XVI?
BISHOP FELLAY: I can only evoke them. First of all, the Holy Father insisted on effective recognition by the Pope, linking it to the situation of necessity invoked by the consecration of the bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, and our subsequent activity.
Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can only be one way of belong to the Catholic Church: it is that of having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is in the intention of the Fathers of the Council and according to the letter of the text. It is a perspective that frightens us greatly…
Finally, we would have to have, the Sovereign Pontiff thinks, a structure that is appropriate for us for the traditional rite and certain exterior practices – without, however, protecting us from the spirit of the Council that we would have to adopt.
D.I.C.I.: The Vatican Press Release at the end of the audience speaks of a “desire to proceed in stages and within a reasonable time limit”. What ought we to understand by this expression?
BISHOP FELLAY: The Pope did not want to go into the problems in depth, but simply to highlight them. But it will be necessary first of all to respond to the requirement of the right of existence of the old Mass so as to afterwards confront the errors of the Council, for we see there the cause of the present evils, both a direct cause and in part an indirect cause.
Of course, we will go step by step. We must show the council in a different light than that which is given to it by Rome. At the same time as we condemn the errors, it is indispensable for us to show their logical consequences and their impact on the disastrous situation of today’s Church, without, however, provoking exasperation, that could cause the discussions to be broken off. This obliges us to proceed by stages.
With respect to a reasonable time limit, it is said in Rome that documents are in preparation for communities attached to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, that are quite new, and offering things that have never previously been offered. “Let us wait and see!” It is certainly true that the Pope has the desire of rapidly arranging this situation.
In order to be quite precise, I would like to add this further detail. We must indeed consider the Pope’s difficult situation. He is stuck between the progressives on one side and us on the other. If he were to grant a general permission for the Mass on the basis on our request alone, the modernists would stand up against him, affirming that the Pope has given way to traditionalists. We learned from Bishop Ricard that in 2000 he, along with Cardinal Lustiger and the Archbishop of Lyon suddenly rushed to Rome to block a proposition made to the Society, under threat of rebellion if it did not work. We know that the German bishops acted in the same way at the time of the World Youth Conference in Cologne: “It is us or them”. By this is meant: “If they are recognized, then we will leave the Church and go into schism.”
It is for this reason that the Pope could not, during the audience, give us the verbal assurance that this Fall, for example, freedom would be given to the Mass. Any promise made by him to the Society in this sense would infallibly expose him to pressure by the progressives. We would then have received the opinions of a Pope against the majority of bishops disposed towards secession. This cannot be expected in the climate of the present debate, even with the will of a certain restoration. As for myself, I believe that it will only be a limited freedom for the Mass that will eventually be granted.
D.I.C.I.: The Press has published rumors concerning divisions within the Society of Saint Pius X? What is exactly the case?
BISHOP FELLAY: The announcement of the audience granted by the Pope provoked feverish talk in the media. They have made a lot of noise, attempting to show that divisions exist in the Society amongst its four bishops. Journalists have likewise published the threats directed against the Pope by the progressives: “To grant freedom to the Mass is to disavow Paul VI and the liturgical reform”.
However, I can affirm to you that within the Society of Saint Pius X, the four bishops are united on the question of the relationships with Rome, and that Bishop Williamson, whose name has been quoted, is not “sedevacantist”. The media has nothing to worry about. Alas, this is for them not newsworthy.
D.I.C.I.: Your Excellency, what do you now hope for?
BISHOP FELLAY: Some Cardinals in Rome hope to see Tradition recognized. We likewise hope for it. We hope, in particular, for complete freedom to be granted to the Mass, but there is little chance that this will be for tomorrow. It will then be a duty to acknowledge the place of Tradition in the Church, avoiding the bad interpretations that are often given concerning it.
We must force the Roman authorities to admit that we cannot follow without serious reservations the interpretation that they given of the Council and of Ecumenism, as it is practiced. Deep down, what we hope for is to make them understand one day the whole reason why Tradition exists.
You will be busy correcting a lot of folks :)
So, basically you're saying "don't bother" with being accurate if it involves too much work. So, the mods played around with Quo Primum in order to give the Novus Ordo some credibility. How Orwellian.
Catholic Ragemonkey Blog..
No need to respond. Those .... have to be the least priestly priests on the Internet.
*Lefebvre never responded.
That's because Paul VI was a liar. And LeFebvre was too reverent of the office to expose that criminal Pope for the louse that he was. Popes are fully capable of being insane, criminal liars.
ad hominem
ad hominem
ad hominem
ad hominem
Great. I knew if I spoke in your language you'd learn something. You're learning logical fallacies. Now start providing arguments with logic.
Fr. Jungmann was a good historian and nowhere would he have suggested that the Missal of St. Pius V was a "new rite".
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago
I know it's hard to believe, but Pius V did not write his bull in English. :)
Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis, in quibus Missa conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari juxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet alias quam juxta Missalis a nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exenptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam juramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica adprobata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus; sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati. Capitulique universi consensu, ut quibusvis non obstantibus, juxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorumdem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnio rejiciendo, ac huic Missali nostro nuper editio, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis nostrae poena, hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus.
As you can see, in the authentic text he doesn't mention anything about a "new rite".
I meant, obviously, the Trindentine Mass in #14.
These as you wrote as priests are also men-human,and not perfect..priests can make the same or worse mistakes as you or anyone..that is why they need prayers. Just because they are priests it doesn't mean as I say they are SAINTS..they have to work for their graces and virtues like us all,if they do not,they are subject to Hell,like the rest of us...if we sin and do not repent.
As Christ said,"Let he who is without sin,cast the first stone"...These priests need a deeper prayer life and prayers..
Pope Pius IX Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873
: “it is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See.”
Would you mind posting a link or something to this? Here's another citation that I'm not sure is part of the actual text. Besides being an encyclical that puts the lie to 'collegiality' it has nothing similar to the situation of LeFebvre and the low grade Popes he had to deal with.
excommunication for schism......He NEVER stared his OWN Church as I keep saying--- to form a "schism"
He was OBEDIENT to God in keeping with TRADITIONAL teaching of the Roman Catholic Church...remaining faithful to the QUO PRIMUM..look it up..
He remained loyal to the True Mass not the NEW STuff...modern,and totally Non- Catholic..What would you have done? He was not a liberal,did not lose the True Mass,did not start the movement to cast everything Catholic out the door and become Protestant..One day he will be a saint,like Thomas More,who would NOT budge for the Kings devorice...obedience to God First ..just because it was easy to follow the soft path. As a WWII Navy Chaplin who is quoted as saying(mind you he too never said the New Ordo and spoke the importance of remaning Faithful to the True Latin Tridentine MASS--'IT IS THE MASS THAT MATtERS"
(1) The word of the Pope in judgment, which by itself is sufficient.
This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, §9)
Well that certainly does not apply to the SSPX who are insisting that the Popes clear up the issues dividing the Church with Supreme power and clear defined ex-Cathedra statements.
(2) The argument used by the Pope, which is quite clear and compelling.
I beg to differ. The argument was vague and dubious. Disobedience doesn't "imply" anything JPII simply inferred it where there was no reason to and basically sat in judgment of a man's interior disposition against his explicit statements to the contrary.
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. ("Ecclesia Dei", §2)
(3) The testimony of traditional Catholic belief on the matter; to give just two examples:
For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. (Pius VI, Charitas, §10)
The context of the encyclical indicates that the schismatic act is the taking of the secular oath which denies papal authority. Not the disobedience of LeFebvre which had the tacit approval of JPII if not his veiled intentions to never give LeFebvre and the Society a bishop.
After the Ascension St. Peter .. since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body. The very nature of episcopal office and of the primacy proves that the Roman Pontiff has exclusive authority to constitute bishops for every part of the Church. Bishops are shepherds for portions of the flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one becomes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy,-the preservation of unity,-could not be realized if the bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to her supreme pastor. The authority of the Roman Pontiff to constitute bishops for all parts of the Church may be exercised directly by personal appointments, or indirectly by delegating others ... 6 Matt. xvi, 19. (E. Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, St. Louis: Herder, 1927. p. 408-9)
The key to the difference between these teachings and the much different situation with the SSPX is over the issue of jurisdiction. The SSPX were not granted jurisdiction by LeFebvre (it wasn't his to grant and if he tried that truly would have been a schismatic act) The bishops as bishops have no authority over anyone.
Obviously the clergy and faithful there should follow the directives of higher authority rather than the Cardinal, if they ever did contradict.
On what do you base this statement?
Has there ever been a legitimate resistance to obedience to a Pope in the history of the Church?
"On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power." St. Thomas, II-II q. 104 a. 5
Yes.
First, c. 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority.
From the definition of schism on New Advent:
Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character IT MUST INCLUDE besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction.
So? If any Pope is sinfully negligent, it is the duty of Catholics to resist him. Pulling rank doesn't help the writer's case.
Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations.
Again, So what? It doesn't matter "who" said to stop. The objective facts of the Church Crisis override all else. The Salvation of Souls is the highest law of the Church. Any Pope who interferes with it, will either have to adhere to it or get mowed down due to the promise of Christ.
Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time.
First the consecrations were to preserve tradition and the Catholic Faith, not necessarily the SSPX. Campos is evidence of that. So this moron doesn't know what he's talking about. Second, it wasn't LeFebvre's position that Rome had to adopt. It's Rome's true position that Rome must be forced to adopt. LeFebvre was in the right position in 1940 and he never moved. What was right in 1940 was right in 1988. The only thing that moved was the darkness over the minds of the Curia.
Hence, in light of the above variables, Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate cannot reasonably be dismissed as a simple act of disobedience to a superior.
Nope. Wrong again. Next? You know, if one of these one-trick ponies would realize that they will always fail when they try to pull the wool over the eyes of Catholics because they always at some point will misrepresent the position of tradition, LeFebvre and the SSPX. What makes this so easy is the fact that they will inevitably do this with either a contextually robbed quotation from the past or a "little white lie" about the facts of the situation they describe. The only way to avoid this achilles heel would be to tell the truth, but then...well, they defeat their own argument. It has such a parallel with Protestantism. Just look for the error, it's always there.
Yes.
Would you be willing to post some examples where resistance to a Pope was legitimate?
You do, however, habitually avoid posts which render absolutely null and utter void any pretensions your schism is either justified or knowledgeable about Tradition. Fellay is demonstrably ignorant; not to mention duplicitous, pompous and pretentious.
The few posts you do respond to are virtually all of an ad hominem or genitive fallacy.
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.