It is appreciated, and reciprocal from me.
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.
Do you always answer for gbcdoj?
LOL lil' anxious, gerard?
Not at all. Are you?
I get sent stuff in freepmail about angelqueen.
Oooh..
Care to share; dare to share? :)
I've got nothing to hide, I'm an open book with my posts, but by all means post the freepmail you've gotten.
INSTRUCTION ON THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION OF THE THEOLOGIAN
THE MAGISTERIUM AND THEOLOGY
A. Collaborative Relations
21. The living Magisterium of the Church and theology, while having different gifts and functions, ultimately have the same goal: preserving the People of God in the truth which sets free and thereby making them "a light to the nations". This service to the ecclesial community brings the theologian and the Magisterium into a reciprocal relationship. The latter authentically teaches the doctrine of the Apostles. And, benefiting from the work of theologians, it refutes objections to and distortions of the faith and promotes, with the authority received from Jesus Christ, new and deeper comprehension, clarification, and application of revealed doctrine. Theology, for its part, gains, by way of reflection, an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the Scripture and handed on faithfully by the Church's living Tradition under the guidance of the Magisterium. Theology strives to clarify the teaching of Revelation with regard to reason and gives it finally an organic and systematic form.(20)
22. Collaboration between the theologian and the Magisterium occurs in a special way when the theologian receives the canonical mission or the mandate to teach. In a certain sense, such collaboration becomes a participation in the work of the Magisterium, linked, as it then is, by a juridic bond. The theologian's code of conduct, which obviously has its origin in the service of the Word of God, is here reinforced by the commitment the theologian assumes in accepting his office, making the profession of faith, and taking the oath of fidelity.(21)
From this moment on, the theologian is officially charged with the task of presenting and illustrating the doctrine of the faith in its integrity and with full accuracy.
23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.
(24) When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.
Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.
I get freepmail from some who lurk there for kicks and just to see how sick that joint really is so maybe I ought to post in here some of the stuff I get in freepmail so the lurkers here can understand what it is you and gerard p. like about angelqueen and what it is that motivates and obsesses the schism. As silence is agreement some of the sick angelquen stuff ought be intructive about the real ideas motivating you and gerard p. no?
You wrote "freepmail from some [ ]who lurk there. What did you intend to write? "stooges?" By all means man, do it! I for one can't wait to kick your tail all over the place on this. Though I will feel a little sorry for you since I'll simply knock you six ways to Sunday instead of taking it easy on you like I've done so far. Nah, you've asked for it. You've only got two tricks. Misrepresent the other side and guilt by association. Other than that it won't be much but appetizers.
I apologize Hermann, my last reply to you was unduly harsh. I was simply reacting to gbcdoj's sudden lack of enthusiasm for the dialogue with his history of knowing some of the most obscure references imaginable and usually of dubious relation to the subject matter.
But maybe I can ask you and get an answer. Is there any legitimate reason for resisting a Pontiff in the history of the Church that you'd be willing to cite?
Don't worry, son. I've read of Exorcisms that were like this. Christ's truth will stop the mad cackling eventually.
* OK
*Keep defending Luther and Lefebvre contra the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils and Authority.
Now THAT's funny! You just read what you want to read into anything. As you copy and paste someone else's bad job of quoting anything they can find that links Luther to LeFebvre. (as if you couldn't match it up with similar statement's from Popes. Hey! Now there's an idea! ) But non-thinkers just believe the name "Luther" or "Hitler" or "Schism" is somehow what passes for a rational argument.
* LOL Poor attempt at diversion.
Care to try and actually defend Luther's and Lefebvre's statements or will you continue the same lame diversionary tactics?
When will you take the time to defend your hero Lefevbre?
Ya got his statements right here. His position is the same as Luther's position, his position is the same as yours. So, what about it? It should be easy for you
I am happy to stipulate I am a dim bulb, an idiot, an ignormaus, insane, possessed, whatever. I couldn't care less what y'all think of me.
But don't you at least have the couarge to defend your hero in public? I mean come on, he is another Athanasius, remember?
Don't let Lefebvre's words speak for themselves. At least TRY and explain them away
*Ut, oh...gerard p. is a real tough guy :)
gonna kick my tail...feels sorry for me...up to now been taking it easy on me....
LOL I swear I am reading an old script from a Freddie Blase wrestling rant - minus the charm :)
If you were "bornacatholic' then you would know what the heck the Church has been going through and UNDERSTAND the wave of traditionalist who pray for the Pope and HOLD unto all the Traditions like ST. Paul tells us in the HOLY BIBLE,not like dumb sheep fall into the pit...COME ON!
Can't see why a bornacatholic is soooo apposed to the Latin Mass ,the groups that hold to it-
You were the only one to bring up AQ on this thread, and although you made many calumnious accusations I ignored them. I only mentioned AQ in response to you, after you had referred to it several times.
It's not healthy physically or spiritually to always be so angry. If reading AQ makes you so angry stop reading it and bringing it up. If you're unable to do so then for goodness sake get help.
Hi Hermann - I agree with this explanation of "manifested", although why the term would need an explanation is a little beyond me.
gbcdoj's sudden lack of enthusiasm for the dialogue
I was actually planning on replying to you tomorrow, but Hermann's response suffices (although why the need for a definition of "manifested"? Even without resorting to technical definitions, it would seem that my meaning was quite clear).
I have a quote from Yves Congar (not Ratzinger)"It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document."
This quote is mutilated (not blaming you). I just read recently Fr. Congar's Challenge to the Church: the Case of Archbishop Lefebvre (quite an interesting read), and 16, 17, and 19 are not the propositions of the Syllabus he lists (from memory, I think he says 15 and 77-79). He goes on to argue that DH is a logical outgrowth of the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII - of course this doesn't really solve the problem, but just pushes the supposed contradiction back.
In any case, there is no actual contradiction between QC and DH. And I doubt very much that Cardinal Ratzinger said that there was.
Thanks for your reply.
Michael Davies in his "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebve" quotes Fr. Congar:
"It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document."
You were right about the propositions :-)
Do you own Fr. Congar's book? Is it possible that the quote used in Fr. Kramer's book is how it appeared in French? It still wouldn't help explain the propositions goof up, though...
Do you own Fr. Congar's book?
No, I read it at a library.
Is it possible that the quote used in Fr. Kramer's book is how it appeared in French? It still wouldn't help explain the propositions goof up, though...
It's probably just an editing mistake on Fr. Kramer's part. Nothing serious but I thought I'd just make it clear which numbers of the Syllabus Fr. Congar actually mentioned. I don't think even the wildest liberal could claim that DH teaches, for instance, that "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ" (no. 17).
I apologize for all my nasty or unkind or intentionally-provoking, cage-rattling, chain-pulling or ranting statements I have made. Not one of them were justified.
As a Christian I must presume y'all are acting with good intent.
My apologies. Please ping those who might have the same sympathy towards the sspx as you do as I have, no doubt, said something unkind or nasty to them and I would like to apologize to them also but I can't remember all of their s/n's.
Thank you.
Dominus vobiscum.
I hope one day you shall see, I pray for you-God guide you always...Hail Mary
I am an adult convert to Catholicism after Vatican II, so vernacular masses are all I know.
I am not following the theology or even the points under contention on either side in this dispute.
But I can say, given the err, sexual scandals in the US recently, that this Bishop has a singularly unfortunate name.
Prayers that God's will be done...on Earth as it is in Heaven.
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.