Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, "No Deal with Rome in Sight"
The Remnant Newspaper | November 15, 2004 | Thomas A. Drolesky

Posted on 11/19/2004 5:42:24 PM PST by Land of the Irish

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Bernard Fellay of the Priestly Fraternity of the Society of Saint Pius X, told parishioners at Saint Ignatius Retreat House in Ridgefield, Connecticut, on Sunday, November 7,2004, that no deal with Rome on the status of the Society of Saint Pius X is in sight. Bishop Fellay commented at length, both in his sermon during Holy Mass and in a two and one-half hour conference that followed a reception in his honor, that although there are some high ranking curial cardinals in Rome who are sympathetic to the cause of giving the Traditional Latin Mass a "little comer in the zoo," none want to examine the root cause of the crisis in the Church: the inroads made by Modernism in the Church's liturgy and in her teaching documents. "What we want, His Excellency said in very measured but firm tones, "is for everyone, not just for us." Bishop Fellay went on to say that an archbishop in the curia had told him, "Don't make an agreement with Rome now. The time is not right. The Pope is no longer governing the Church. We need you to stay where you are and to stand firm in defense of the Faith."

Bishop Fellay specifically pointed to the example of the Bishop Fernando Rifan of the Society of Saint John-Marie Vianney in Campos, Brazil, to indicate that the path of compromise with the Vatican as it is currently constituted leads to a loss of integrity. Bishop Fellay noted that Bishop Rifan has defended his apparent concelebration at an offering of the Novus Ordo Missae in Brazil by saying that he, Bishop Rifan, had extended his hands but did not actually mouth the words at the moment that the other bishops recited aloud the words of consecration. "Everybody gets cheated in this instance," Bishop Fellay said, noting that Bishop Rifan is giving the appearance to traditionalists of having compromised while giving the appearance of , 'unity" with the adherents of the Novus Ordo. Bishop Fellay commented quite specifically that lay women gave out Holy Communion in the hand in the presence of Bishop Rifan. "This is not the path we are going to follow," Bishop Fellay said, indicating that although he would like to think his priests would be immune to the pressures that have been exerted on priests in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King and Campos to offer the Novus Ordo, he, Bishop Fellay, knows that human nature is what it is and that some of his priests might succumb to the pressure.

Bishop Fellay also said that he knows that Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and the President of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, was furious with him for the Society's irrefutable treatise on the errors of ecumenism. Indeed, the novelty of ecumenism was the focus of much of Bishop Fellay's sermon and conference. Bishop Fellay, who discussed at length the elements of authentic obedience, said that the Society of Saint Pius X could never accept the novelty of ecumenism that has gutted the Catholic Faith and has reaffirmed actual heretics and schismatics in their errors.

A full report of Bishop Fellay's magnificent and humor-filled conference will be carried in the November 30th issue of The Remnant. Suffice it for present purposes to note that His Excellency stressed that charity must prevail in all our dealings with our fellow Catholics so that they will see reflected in us the patience of Our Lord, who is so patient with us in the Sacrament of Penance. He reminded his listeners that we are living in the exact moment that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive and that His ineffable grace is sufficient for us to weather the storms besetting the Barque of Peter. His talk was uplifting and edifying. It will be given in other locales (Chicago, St. Louis, Post Falls) during His Excellency's American visit.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; fellay; sspx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Grey Ghost II

He was wrong in so many areas it was difficult to pick just one.


41 posted on 11/20/2004 9:01:01 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SausageDog

Numbers are beside the point. So is your status, whether bishop or lowly parishioner. Only the true faith matters--and that, sadly, has not been in wide currency the past forty years.

But let me take your point one step further. What are your vaunted "contemporary popes, bishops, ecumenical council, and one billion followers", compared to all the preceding saints, popes and councils and faithful departed since apostolic times?

This New Church, after all, has been around a mere forty years. Traditional Catholicism has existed for two thousand. It is the essence of modernism, however, to think it knows better than all who went before--that politically correct moderns know better because they are more intelligent than those who went before. This is sheer arrogance, neither wisdom nor piety.


42 posted on 11/20/2004 9:06:58 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

i attend the SSPX masses and also the so called legal novus order masses. When I miss the Sunday latin mass i have the longing to attend the mass , when i miss the Novus Ordo mass ...i just missed an obligation .
In my country ....the tridentine mass is never said since Vatican 11 ...i learnt and heard of latin mass through the media and the internet . The bishops has managed to suppress the Latin Mass...
Thanks to SSPX ...the latin mass is returning and the congregation is growing ....


43 posted on 11/20/2004 9:17:07 PM PST by orientalsushi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; Land of the Irish

Who says the SSPX or those who attend their Masses are "not in communion with the Pope"? This is patently absurd, especially since the Society and its followers pray for the Pope daily and reject any notion of sedevacantism. Claiming they are not in communion is based on a unilateral presupposition that the only motive Archbishop Lefebvre had for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate was to deny the Pope's authority. This is nonsense. The motive was to protect the ancient Mass from extinction and to save souls from perdition. This was wholly lawful and good--regardless of the spin placed on such an action by the Pope himself.


44 posted on 11/20/2004 9:17:15 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

Bumpus ad summum


45 posted on 11/20/2004 9:31:48 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The FSSP split has already taken away those who see union with Rome as an important issue and as a result, those remaining are probably never going to be too anxious to heal the rift.

The FSSP has already split? I'm not surprised.

46 posted on 11/20/2004 10:00:33 PM PST by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
I too was a little afraid to attend their chapels until very recently. The fact is their "schism" is in great confusion (often Cardinal Hoyos takes of "regularising" their solution, than of "solving a schism"), and in many places their chapels are the only viable place to find a reverent liturgy with solid orthodox preaching.

If you are unsure as to their status in the eyes of the Holy See, a very good response from the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up to manage or "contain" traditional Catholics) can be found at:

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

One quote from the letter is this:

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

It also states that a contribution is allowed in their collections. In other words, you are free to attend, as long as you do not adopt any "anti Rome" mentality in the process. I hope this have been of some help to you.
47 posted on 11/21/2004 5:10:04 AM PST by davidj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Who says the SSPX or those who attend their Masses are "not in communion with the Pope"? This is patently absurd, especially since the Society and its followers pray for the Pope daily and reject any notion of sedevacantism.

Then what is this thread about?

If SSPX is in communion with the Pope, then why does Fellay say "no deal in sight"?

When the excommunications were incurred, JPII made it clear that those who offered support to the excommunicated placed themselves in a serious postion.

Praying for the Pope does not constitute "communion." I pray for the temporal leaders of this world despite the fact that I disagree with almost everything they do. I am not in "communion" with them.

"Communion" has a much stronger meaning. It implies unity. Oneness.

48 posted on 11/21/2004 5:27:52 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: davidj
I hope this have been of some help to you.

It has, and thank you.

I currently belong to a Latin Mass Community. We have no Parish of our own. A local Church allows us to hold our Tidentine Mass there, which has been approved by our Bishop. It's a beautiful Church, St. Stanislaus, in Rochester, NY.

Renovations have recently been completed, and the Latin Mass Community contributed $21,000, which is pretty good, because we're a small group.

I'd like to attend at the other little Chapel as well for a couple of reasons. First, I'd like to see an SSPX Mass (if that's what it is) for myself, and secondly I'd like to contribute to the cause of the Latin Mass in general, and not just my own little Community, so that it may remain viable.

The Priests who currently assist at the Latin Mass are not young, and I'm not sure if younger Priests are being groomed to take their place. The Tridentine Mass hangs by a whim and a thread for that, and other reasons.

And while I do think His Holiness has failed in some of his Administrative and Governance duties, I have affection for Pope John Paul II, and in no way consider him 'illicit'.

49 posted on 11/21/2004 6:02:20 AM PST by AlbionGirl (+Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Wessex
Davies yielded? I can understand what you are getting at with the others, but Davies? Michael Davies?

Michael Davies was giant in the traditional world. He gave the second half of his life to the traditional cause, travelled the world, wrote 20 or 30 books, hundreds of articles. He always supported the Society of St. Pius X (remember his Apologia on Archbishop Lefebvre, who also confirmed his children). As president of Una Voce, he pretty much saved the '62 missal from being replaced by a later edition within the Indult community - something, for which, we can be eternally grateful. He did not agree with the consecrations, but still defended them from the charge of schism. Can any of us honestly hold a light up to all of this?

Davies' crime, it seems, is that is supported Catholic traditional wherever he found it, whether within the SSPX or within an "Indult" environment. I honestly believe we should do the same - the health of the Church will never be restored if we just watch from the sidelines. We also rely on good hard working priests in dioceses who are doing their best to bring their flock back to a sense of tradition. Without compromising themselves (e.g. the Campos news of late), traditional orders need to get involved and help drive out the smoke of Satan from the sanctuary of the Church. The liberals in the early 20th century didn't eventually get their own way by staying away and hoping the Church will adopt their heresy. Our Lord did say "so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves", and so must we.

Although what Bishop Fellay says is probably entirely correct, the fact is that it is regrettable that the SSPX finds itself having to stay outside - it is nothing to feel good about. The sooner the conditions are right and that an agreement is reached, then the sooner the Society can aid in the effort to drive out the smoke of Satan and restore some order. This is what Bishop Fellay is asking for - the freedom to do this, not a "reservation" or a high/low church mentality the Anglicans have that will never face the crisis. May the example of St. Athanasius always lead us in hope who never refused to return to his beloved city of Alexandria.

Finally, Bishop Fellay gave us pause for thought when he said:

His Excellency stressed that charity must prevail in all our dealings with our fellow Catholics so that they will see reflected in us the patience of Our Lord
Are all we trads doing the same?
50 posted on 11/21/2004 6:25:02 AM PST by davidj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
Thank you for telling me about your situation. Mine was sort of similar. Until recently, we attended a "Mass centre" (it was in a community hall as the local churches didn't want to give us a time) in Oxford, England. Unfortunately, that is now closed, and we were left with three options - travel to Oxford again (which was, after all, over 30 miles away) to an 8am Mass in the Oratory there which just started up (we have four small children), or attend the local Novus Ordo, or attend a local SSPX school chapel (also early, but just a few miles away). The first was simply too much for us, the second option was unacceptable, so we are living out the third option as of now.

I must say the SSPX priests are not as scary as one would imagine, although that may depend on the individuals involved!! :-) The people are very decent, friendly, and entirely natural in their expression of the faith. There are lots of children, all modestly dressed with their little missals. It almost feels like home...

However, we never really fully depend on anything 100%, given our great disappointments in the past. We still attend the Indult whenever it is available. You seem to be taking a very sensible approach - support tradition wherever you find it. The crisis in the Church is simply so bad, we need to pull together, not split apart. I think it was Michael Matt, of The Remnant, who said that if traditionalists were asked to form a firing squad, they would form a circle!

51 posted on 11/21/2004 6:37:28 AM PST by davidj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: davidj
What a cogent, excellent post. Honor matters, it should matter 100 fold to us Traditionalists, who are trying to return the Church to its good-fruit roots.

Last week at Mass, our Priest spoke of Satan in the Church, and his insignia of confusion. He went on to illustrate by reminding us of that scene in the exorcist, where Satan leaves the body and exits through the wall, leaving the word confusion scrawled across it.

Powerful reminder, in my opinion, of Satan's ways and means.

52 posted on 11/21/2004 7:01:56 AM PST by AlbionGirl (+Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: davidj

"Davies yielded? I can understand what you are getting at with the others, but Davies? Michael Davies?"


As well as a champion of the flawed indult arrangement Davies was starting to put too much trust in Ratzinger who as we know is a creature of Vatican II. His work to defend tradition is acknowledged but when push came to shove he preferred to stick with the modernisers.

Atending both indult and SSPX churches must be very confusing. In one you accept Vatican II and Novus Ordo as an alternative; in the other you do not.


53 posted on 11/21/2004 10:05:55 AM PST by Wessex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

1. The "deal" is about legalisms. As pope JPII most definitely has the authority to SAY someone is excommunicated and to set up a legal framework that makes life difficult within the Church as a result of such a declaration.

2. But the pope cannot make someone guilty who is, in fact, innocent. In other words, the pope can be wrong in his judgment--and in such a case the innocent party would rightfully consider any excommunication a nullity. The legal framework, however, would remain and need to be worked out. In other words, a "deal" would have to be arranged satsifactory to both the conscience of the innocent party and the Holy See.

3. This would be as if an innocent man were convicted by the Supreme Court for a crime from which there was no appeal outside the Court itself. The Court might be wrong to have convicted him, but the legal ramifications would remain regardless of his innocence. The moral ramifications, however, would favor the innocent party just the same. (cf. Dred Scott Decision.)

4. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in particular, the Pope was wrong to ever accuse him of denying lawful papal authority by consecrating bishops without a mandate. The motive for the Archbishop's doing this was not the denial of authority, but the salvation of souls and the desire to protect the ancient Mass from destruction. It is as if a father who is drunk should ask his son for the car keys. The son's refusal would not be a denial of paternal authority, but a wish to avoid a catastrophe.

5. In addition, it should be remembered the Archbishop properly evoked the Pope's own Canon Law--canons 1323-24--which allowed for apparent disobedience in a state of necessity. The Archbishop considered, in good conscience, that the Church was in the throes of crisis and that he was obliged to act to save it from those in the process of destroying it. Whether the Archbishop was correct or not was beside the point, moreover. Canon Law only asks that the subject be in good faith while acting--in which case no excommunication could be incurred.

6. Finally, it should likewise be remembered that while the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church, this means only that he may not be checked from below--by subordinates. But he is most definitely delimited from above--by Divine Law itself which commands that the innocent not be punished.


54 posted on 11/21/2004 10:29:22 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
"He was wrong in so many areas it was difficult to pick just one."

But please try. Only use canon law and Papal pronouncements, not SSPX wish list (spin).

To think that you are the Church because your theology is more correct, and that the Church is not the Church because their new theology is wrong, is extremely arrogant. The Church may be wrong, but it is still the Church.

I never wanted to say this because I am sympathetic to SSPX, and that the Tridentine Mass is the only Mass, but you guys are just wrong. You have left the Church just as assuredly as have the Protestants.

The only difference is the great deceiver picked the perfect time (Vatican II) to continue his work begun in the 16th century. You use a theology that can't be refuted, but you are outside the Church. What a stroke of genius and confusion.

Just don't use your words to lure others away.

55 posted on 11/21/2004 11:19:40 AM PST by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wessex
His work to defend tradition is acknowledged but when push came to shove he preferred to stick with the modernisers.

No, I think you misunderstand Davies' intention here. He really did think that Ratzinger was on our side and under the circumstances was doing at least something behind the scenes. One example is his lifting of the "excommunication" towards the supporters of the SSPX in Hawaii. Davies may well have been mistaken on this (I personally have my grave doubts), but that does not mean he "yielded" or sided with the "modernisers", as if he turned his back on everything else he did.

Atending both indult and SSPX churches must be very confusing. In one you accept Vatican II and Novus Ordo as an alternative; in the other you do not.

No, not at all. My attitude in both is the same. Although the terms of the Indult are far too restrictive (and, for example, having to recognise the "orthodoxy" or the new rite of Mass), it should simply be used as a vehicle to promote tradition in the mainstream Church. I don't honestly believe parish churches should be just left to rot in their Novus Ordo hole - tradition needs to take root once again and promoted wherever it is welcome. Traditional priests in dioceses need our support, working as they are under such impossible circumstances, not our condemnation.

56 posted on 11/21/2004 11:50:24 AM PST by davidj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Arguss; Canticle_of_Deborah

Nobody says the SSPX is the Church. But it certainly is a part of the Church. And by the same token, it is a mistake to confuse the papacy with the entire Church. A pope is its steward only, not its creator; it is his job to protect what has been handed-down to him and to transmit this, not to invent novelties nor to change what he should be guarding against change. If he does not do this, others must do so by default--in this case, traditional Catholics who care about such matters. The arrogance, therefore, is with those who would dare to impose a new religion on the faithful, not with those who merely defend the faith from destruction.


57 posted on 11/21/2004 12:49:32 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
In other words, the pope can be wrong in his judgment--and in such a case the innocent party would rightfully consider any excommunication a nullity.

Got a traditional source for this?

The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice ... Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)

58 posted on 11/21/2004 1:04:51 PM PST by gbcdoj ("I acknowledge everyone who is united with the See of Peter" - St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
"it is a mistake to confuse the papacy with the entire Church."

On the contrary. Unfortunately, that's how we tell where the Church is. And my walking out the door would not even be noticeable, in fact plays into 'their' hands.

You'll notice no effort was made to stop the en'masse exodus of the faithful after VII - people who just walked out and never came back. Just like them, I don't think the Church cares if you ever come back either. I do.

I don't particularly pray for protestants to come back, but I do pray for seperated Catholics. Don't die outside the Church - just maybe you are mistaken where the Church is. Maybe I am also, it's not so easy these days.

The thing is, don't allow your zeal of activism to cloud your good judgement. Just maybe you don't have the complete answer. Correct theology is only part of the puzzle, and unless we know the mind of God, may be only a small part. Were the martyrs in the catacombs, who weren't privy to our theology any less Catholic? Are they in the new Limbo waiting for the second coming? I don't think so.

I'm not saying to join the Novus Ordo, just.......

59 posted on 11/21/2004 1:53:15 PM PST by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

A source: the Catholic Encyclopedia:



An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty.


60 posted on 11/21/2004 2:02:43 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson