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.

"The traditions of the church are not the reasons why they are excommunicated."

Actually, it's my understanding that they are.

The reasoning goes like this, I think:

(1) Modernists in the Church trying to destroy it.
(2) Nobody holding out except SSPX.
(3) Can't do that without priests. Can't ordain priests without bishops.
(4) Modernists insist they will pick bishops, which means death of SSPX.
(5) To keep Tradition from being swept away and suppressed forever, it was necessary for SSPX to ordain bishops.

"Is this a matter about which they claim some sort of special knowledge which, on their view, Rome lacks?"

Not lacks, rejects.

Have you read Saint Pius X on modernists? SSPX holds that the modernists continued what Pius X saw them doing, and by the middle of the 20th century had gained enough influence to steer the Church away from authentic tradition.

Think of it as similar to the way leftists in America have gained ground step by step, until now we find ourselves completely divorced from the principles on which the country was founded.

After all, leftists and modernists both take their marching orders from Satan.

"He hasn;t abandoned His Church to heretical Popes. If you think that has happened"

The tactic of restating a person's position as a ridiculous extreme is one often used by liberals.

I never said anything about God "abandoning" His Church, or about any pope being heretical.

However, it is plain, historical fact that God has in the past allowed bad men to become bishops, and, arguably, popes.

Still trying to figure out what is at the root of your far-too-emotional refusal to face that fact.

Nobody holding out except SSPX

Yeah. The problem is that this is false reasoning. It is a Catholic dogma that the Apostolic See of Rome will always "hold out". Per the IVth Council of Constantinople:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.

I asked one of the SSPX apologists here about this and he told me that the Council was wrong, and said the same about Pope Sixtus IV's condemnation of "the Church of the City of Rome can err" as being "contrary to the holy Catholic faith" and as containing "manifest heresy" (Bull "Licet ea", Aug. 9, 1479). Go figure.

It is a Catholic dogma that the Apostolic See of Rome will always "hold out". Per the IVth Council of Constantinople:

We have to define what "holding out" is. That can't possibly mean papal impeccability. Right?

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith.

Popes individually are not guaranteed salvation personally, correct? So, that would leave open the possibility of a Pope not maintaining the rule of faith in his person. Correct?

And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.

This then, begs the question: Just how bad can a Pope be? Where is the defined impossibility that the Apostolic See can't engage in? Once we find that untouchable place, everywhere before that point is possible.

Was he a card-carrying member of the SSPX apologist's task force?

"I asked one of the SSPX apologists here about this and he told me that the Council was wrong"

Are you sure he didn't tell you that your interpretation of this passage is wrong?

I find nothing to disagree with in the passage, and nothing that contradicts SSPX.

Setting aside for the nonce matters of translation (which always makes me nervous), let's look at what it says.

"And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences."

Okay. Our Lord built his Church upon that rock. All parties are agreed.

"For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished"

. . . has always been . . . There's no promise for the future there. It doesn't say, "can never be attacked."

"Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches"

That's exactly what SSPX holds. However, they also hold that modenists within the Church are trying to separate the entire Church from its faith and doctrine (for which you can make a strong case), so they hold to the faith and doctrine, and the communion that the Apostolic See preached, at the time that document was written.

This entire line of argument, though, is begging the real questions.

Has the Church been under attack from within by those Saint Pius X called Modernists?

Have those Modernists introduced changes to the Catholic the faith and doctrine as it existed before they came along?

If so, what is their authority for so doing?

Hatred of schism... Nothing more Traditional than that.

Try reading the Early Church Fathers on schism some time. They'll either make you ears blister and encourage you to grow a set or they will make you take the position they are irrationally emotional and, presumably suspect.

Either way, it is your will and you have liberty to either set it with or against the Church Jesus established.

Good morning.

Do you only try and correct the behavior of those in union with Rome?

The short answer is 'no'. The longer answer is that I spend little time reading the comments to Religion forum articles about the SSPX, Vatican II, the different forms of the Mass, etc., and even less time composing a comment of my own. Primarily, I spend little time because I've found that the discussions deteriorate quickly into spitting matches [insert image of two tomcats spitting]. When that happens, the discussion is very boring.

as a Catholic Traditionalist I will, of course, accept any and all decisions taken by the Pope. That is what we Catholic Traddies have always done :)

'[A]ccept any and all'. I hope I'm not taking that phrase out of context, but it seems as if you have a wider view of the Pope's authority or competency than I do. I won't be drawn into a discussion of papal blunders, though.

Good morning, brother. You are probably wise to avoid the incessant and interminable sspx vs Unity threads. We all seem to endlessly replow the same inert soil but I justify it to myself by thinking the Traditional error-must-be-opposed-or-complicity-must-be-assumed situation prevails in this instance; and, I tend to think it informs lurkers or newbies as to the facts of the matter.

I do read some of your threads and I appreciate your posting from Gueranger. I have his Liturgical Year collection.

I'll admit my idea of obedience is not quite that of St. Theresa of Avila's whose idea of fulfilling her vow of obedience extended to her obeying a rather odd command from her superior.

After speaking about her afflatic experiences her Superior ordered her to make a certain gesture towards he who appeared in her visions (Jesus). The gesture is what we would now describe as "flipping one off." Theresa obeyed the order but apologized in advance of the actions for obeying she who she promised to obey.

So, if Pope Benedict orders me to flip-off my Bishop I think I would be reluctant to comply :

However, if I lived in Los Angeles...

There's no promise for the future there

But it's explicitly stated to be a consequence of a saying that "cannot fail of its effect".

Have those Modernists introduced changes to the Catholic the faith and doctrine as it existed before they came along?

No, the Catholic faith is always the same.

Hi Gerard,

That can't possibly mean papal impeccability. Right?

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Popes are made sinless in virtue of their office.

So, that would leave open the possibility of a Pope not maintaining the rule of faith in his person.

I disagree and I refer you to Bellarmine's judgment about the impossibility of a heretical pope. In any case it is irrelevant since what we are discussing here is whether it could happen that the Roman Church cease to be Catholic, not whether the Pope could fall from his see, as would happen if he became a heretic.

Once we find that untouchable place, everywhere before that point is possible.

"For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor". Looks like a sufficient guarantee to me that the Catholic religion will never end up having to be based out of Econe. Of course, many in the SSPX don't see it that way.

What remains of the magisterium in the Church? ... Well, this magisterium, at least as regards the truths denied by the conciliar hierarchy, lies in Mgr Lefebvre in whom it can be found in a certain manner. He is the veritable echo of tradition, the faithful witness, the good shepherd whom simple sheep have been able to identify from the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Yes, the Church still has a living and perpetual magisterium and Mgr Lefebvre is its saviour. The indefectibility of the Church can be seen in the inflexibility of the Archbishop. (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Fideliter, n. 72 (1989), p. 10)

Was he a card-carrying member of the SSPX apologist's task force?

Not that I know of. Are you? :)

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.