INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY CONCERNING HIS MEETING WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI

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.

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.

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.

Sigh.... You really do overrate your posts. The only thing that delays me from responding to tripe like this is the fact that you post so much of it, and I don't really feel like beating the dead horse dealing with small calibre arguments from every emotionally overcharged neo-Catholic who thinks he's got a grasp of the situation in the Church. (He'd be a traditionalist if he did.) It's the same thing over and over again. I've proved this too many times to count. But here. I'll do it again.

2.2 THE EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE On June 9, 1988, Pope John Paul II replied to Lefebvre's letter of June 2, exhorting him not to proceed with the illicit consecration of bishops, and reiterating the position of the Holy See as follows: In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to "provide the means yourself to continue your work,"

Actually, LeFebvre stated that they were not in agreement because the communication between the two parties hadn't been effective. The language of the Curia (ambiguity and duplicity) was not the language of LeFebvre (clarity).

From the above letter Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Holy Father that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations, and in so doing he would violate both the norms of canon law as well as the Protocol agreement.

"Norms" as if JPII's suicidal course for the Church has the intellectual honesty to call anything "norms". The "norms" don't apply in a crisis.

Furthermore, the Holy Father confirmed that his mind in this matter had been clearly stated by Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter of May 30th.

So? That just speaks ill for the state of JPII's mind.

This would not deter Lefebvre from proceeding with his press conference on June 15, 1988, in order to publicly announce the names of the four candidates he intended to consecrate to episcopacy on June 30, 1988.

Good. Thanks be to God.

Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.

Schism isn't mentioned? hmmmm.....

The latter part of the monition simply reiterates what is legislated in c. 1382, in that without a pontifical mandate one who consecrates a bishop, as well as those who receive consecration, are automatically excommunicated by the law itself.

Obviously with exceptions. It's the canon law that states it. The Pope can't pick and choose the realities which apply to Canon Law, either it all does (which mitigates and exonerates LeFebvre) or none of it matters and it's just the rantings of a an unjust and evil Pope.

Having incurred such an excommunication, it can only be lifted by the Apostolic See.

Not having incurred one in reality also requires a correction of a future Pope on the last disaster. Maybe B16, maybe someone after him. Maybe God himself on judgement day.

However, the monition from the Congregation for Bishops did not deter Lefebvre, and on June 30, 1988, he followed through with his threat and consecrated four candidates from the SSPX to the episcopacy without papal mandate.

Yep. That's a shame that the Pope was so obstinate in his hatred for tradition. You can see how God quickly punished him right after '88. The long, slow deterioration of all his gifts. All the things that JPII thought would carry him in bringing his lousy message to the faithful were taken back by God.

A serious act of disobedience and violation of ecclesiastical law, Lefebvre had now consummated the growing SSPX schism from Rome, automatically incurring excommunication.

False.

Subsequently, the automatic excommunication against Lefebvre was declared by Cardinal Gantin in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988, the day after the illicit consecrations.

Again, so what? Gantin was just another internal enemy of the Church.

Acting in his official capacity on behalf of the pope, Cardinal Gantin solemnly declares:

Actually he was abusing his office as JPII did.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law...

He just pulled "schism" right out of thin air on that one. A completely irrelevant designation but one that is good for calumny. This is idiocy and an embarassment to come from the Vatican. Eventually a strong Pope will condemn this lunacy.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Factually in error and therefore, invalid.

As is clearly visible from the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, having consecrated bishops without a valid pontifical mandate and against express wishes of the Holy See, Lefebvre automatically incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

False. As demonstrated above. I have to utterly laugh at these fools who type "clearly" in order to deceive.

Yet against this decree, Lefebvre's apologists would argue "that the above decree is not the sentence of a judge, but rather a declaration that Canons 1364 and 1382 apply."(85) That the excommunication is latae sententiae rather than ferendae sententiae is completely irrelevant in establishing the validity of Lefebvre's excommunication. As c. 331 states, "by virtue of his office, [the Roman Pontiff] has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power."

No one denies it. But that doesn't address that the Pope was wrong and the excommunications were intrinsically invalid. He's freely exercising his power but he's also free to abuse it and be legitimately resisted.

With regards to c. 1382, the Roman Pontiff has utilized his supreme legislative power to establish by law a latae sententiae excommunication for those who consecrate a bishop without papal mandate.

And he established a law mitigating those circumstances.

In accordance with c. 17, such an ecclesiastical law must be understood according to the mind of the legislator, and in accordance with c. 16 §1, such a law is authentically interpreted by the legislator.

"Authentically" just means that the Pope has the right to rule on the laws. Not that they are infallible or always just.

In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, both the legislator's mind and interpretation regarding c. 1382 were clearly and personally communicated to Lefebvre by the Supreme Legislator previous to Lefebvre's violation of c. 1382.

Again, so what? It's LeFebvre's intention which is paramount in his acts and his culpability.

Furthermore, by the very fact Lefebvre proceeded publicly in his act of disobedience means his violation of c. 1013 was external,

As were his intentions publicly stated. But JPII and his cronies (or masters) decided to ignore that part against all truth.

With regards to the penalties imposed by c. 1364 §1, this norm establishes that "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1,

But LeFebvre was not a schismatic. Period. The question doesn't rest on schism. It rests on a crisis provoked by this Pope in particular and Paul VI. This idiot wants to ignore that though.

n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3."

As far as the penalties outlined in c. 1336, these are additional expiatory penalties that may be imposed, and thus are not directly applicable to the present controversy as neither Lefebvre nor the bishops illicitly consecrated have seriously attempted to reconcile their schism.

Since there is no schism.

On the other hand, c. 194 §1, 2o provides that "one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion with the Church" is "removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself."

Which LeFebvre never did. That was Gantin's and or JPII's lies/errors whichever. The end result is that JPII was wrong on the facts.

However, c. 194 §2 legislates that the "removal mentioned in [c. 194 §1] nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by declaration of the competent authority."

"Competent" opens up a whole world of possibilities.

As the penalties mentioned in c. 1364 §1 apply to Lefebvre, he incurred an additional latae sententiae excommunication for the offense of schism.

Again, straw man. There was no schism.

C. 751 defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

LeFebvre did neither.

Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate was a refusal of submission to the express will of the Supreme Pontiff.

No it wasn't. It was disobedience to a Pope that was systematically allowing or promoting the destruction of the Catholic Church.

As the penalty for schism was declared by the competent authority in the form of the Holy See, by virtue of the law itself Lefebvre was automatically removed from all ecclesiastical office.(86)

Inaccurate and therefore invalid. No schism, no application of that penalty.

Against the declaration of schism, however, Lefebvre's followers have argued that his consecration of bishops without papal mandate was not an act of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or from the communion with the Church, but merely an act of disobedience.

Primarily an act for the preservations of souls.

In citing one canonical study, Lefebvre's followers maintain that "schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority."(87)

Absolutely.

The above argument fails to take into account four variables relevant to Lefebvre's consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff.

Let's take a look-see.

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.

It also doesn't say that the Pope is to be obeyed for a command that will harm the Church.

Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction.

Again. No one denies that. So what? "Superiors can be rebuked even by their inferiors." This is the constant teaching of the Church.

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.

Compounding the error/malfeasance of the Pope does not change LeFebvre's duty to resist a Pope to the face that does not walk uprightly with the Gospel.

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.

That's no argument against LeFebvre. His actions were calibrated towards a solution to a continuing plague within the Church. It's as if saying, "Not only did LeFebvre have the antidote to the disease. He manufactured some against the wishes of the Pope. And he intended on innoculating as many people as he could."

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.

The only thing unreasonable is the lack of logic that this bonehead tries to pass off as "clear thinking"

Therefore, an objective canonical analysis of Lefebvre's situation illustrates that he incurred a latae sententiae excommunication by virtue of the law both for the act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate, and for carrying out this act against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff as an act of schism.

Hah! Hardly objective. The bias is relevant because the context of LeFebvre's actions are ignored. The Pope was at fault. He was a disaster and LeFebvre was God's solution. Just as St. Paul kicked St. Peter's tail over at Antioch. Just as the bishops as a whole refused Paschal II's demand that they vacate their sees for the state to fill them, Just as John XX spouted heresy from the pulpit, Just as bishop Grossteste resisted and refused the nepotism of the Pope (Innocent IV? )

Thus the canonical arguments proposed by the Lefebvrite movement against the validity of the excommunications cannot be sustained in light of the Church's canonical jurisprudence.

Well. That was easy to debunk. I haven't even finished digesting my breakfast. I didn't think I would have enough room to chew up this little snack, yet here I am picking my teeth with the bones. :)

*The lying sspx and its lying liars defending the sspx lies will try and lie the obvious doesn't mean what it means.

I just showed you the obvious. Learn from it.

Gerard,

The context of the encyclical indicates that the schismatic act is the taking of the secular oath which denies papal authority

That's not the reason that he gives: "the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See ... it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained ..." (emphasis added).

Disobedience doesn't "imply" anything

It certainly does when one usurps a right which de jure divino belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff precisely because of his primacy. That does, in fact, imply a denial "in practice" of the papal primacy which it refuses to recognize.

Doctors, however, commonly note: ... Fifth, he is a schismatic who separates himself in effect and deed from the Pontiff, although he does not directly intend it: Wherefore although for heresy internal dissent is also required, schism however can exist without the express internal will of denying subjection to the Pontiff: for the very deeds themselves suffice ... so they are properly schismatics who elect another as a pseudo-Pontiff, or who without the consent of the true Pontiff celebrate a general council, or follow it, since in this they arrogate to themselves the pontifical power. (John Cardinal De Lugo, Tractatus De Virtute Fidei Divinae, dist. xxv., sect. iii., emphasis added)

the disobedience of LeFebvre which had the tacit approval of JPII

According to you this is "tacit approval"?

In the letter that you sent me, you seem to reject all acquisition of previous discussions, since you clearly manifest your intention of "giving yourself the means of pursuing your Work," notably in proceeding under little and without apostolic mandate to one or many episcopal ordinations, this in flagrant contradiction not only of the prescriptions of canon law, but also with the protocol signed May 5th and the instructions relative to this problem contained in the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger sent you at my request May 30th.
With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity the present circumstances require, I exhort you, venerable brother, to renounce your project which, if it is realized, could not but appear as a schismatic act of which the inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience towards the Vicar of Christ. (John Paul II, Letter to Msgr. Lefebvre, 9 June 1988)

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

Yes, yes, we've all heard this before. But Berry says "After the Ascension St. Peter and his successors take the place of Christ as visible head of the Apostolic body, with full authority to carry out His will ... Consequently the Roman Pontiff, as sucessor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic Body, i. e., he alone has authority to constitute bishops ..."

If one is a Catholic bishop, then he is a member of the episcopal body: "one is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body" (LG 22). As Tissier de Mallerais admits in Fideliter: "would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the 'formal apostolic succession'? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops? ... it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident..." (emphasis added).

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.