Bishop Bernard Fellay, "No Deal with Rome in Sight"

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.

"By asking that question you imply that the 'contemporary popes, bishops, ecumenical council, and one billion followers' are at variance with 'all the preceding saints, popes and councils and faithful departed since apostolic times.'

Exactly. The fact that the postconciliar Church is at variance with its own Tradition is indisputable. Whether this constitutes heresy in all cases is not clear. With some, it clearly does. I believe we should give the present Pontiff the benefit of a doubt--but the doubt persists just the same. He has prayed with those who worship false gods, for instance--not along side of them, but WITH them, their own heathen prayers, even pouring out libations to the Great Thumb in a Tojo sacred forest. This is certainly unorthodox behavior for a Catholic pope. But whether it constitutes true heresy or merely a misguided effort at charity is not clear.

Again, regarding Vatican II--the fact that it is at variance with all previous Catholic councils is indisputable. But it was a pastoral council only--and therefore not divinely protected from error. It declared no new dogma that is binding on the faithful--but published many which were ambiguous and even radical. What is clear is that some of its statements are clearly at variance with previous councils and papal teachings.

Finally, your saying I am a heretic for merely pointing all this out reveals your own lack of understanding of what heresy truly is. Heresy is the rejection of a dogma of faith. I reject not a single dogma. It is not a dogma that we must not criticize popes and bishops, for instance. Good Catholics have done this throughout history. Dante placed six or seven popes in his Inferno, including the pontiff who reigned during his lifetime--and for good reason. You need to understand such matters better before hurling such accusations.

"Bishop Fellay should listen to the Pope and reunify with the Church. That would be TRUE obedience. He has no obligation to any 'high ranking archbishop.'"

First, there is no need to "reunify with the Church." That unity was never broken, despite the erroneous statements by John Paul to the contrary. There never was a schism. There was only the abuse of power by the Holy See which forced good men to choose between their faith and a false obedience.

Second, Bishop Fellay does not feel any obligation to a "high ranking archbishop", as you say. He only feels an obligation to protect the traditional faith in lieu of the failure of the present See to do so. And he does so by default, not because he wants to. Moreover, there can be no "regularization" of relations with Rome until it surrenders its modernist ambitions and converts to the traditional faith of our forefathers.

Third, those who place the Pope above the faith cannot properly understand where the SSPX is coming from. There was every indication John Paul II intended to destroy the ancient Mass, having thrown in his lot with the ecclesiastical marauders who had already spread ruin everywhere. The evidence is there. Look at it.

What "authoritative decrees"? What could have been more authoritative than Canon Law itself which provided the Archbishop with protection by means of canon 1323, the canon on the state of necessity? Even more, what could have been more authoritative than the Divine Law on which that canon is based and which demands that the innocent not be punished if no malice or evil was ever intended? It is gbcdoj who never responds logically to this argument, not I.

In fact, neither he nor yourself can deal with the truth of the actual situation--nor explain why the Archbishop's evocation of this canon was illegitimate under the circumstance. Did he not truly believe there was a state of emergency in the Church? Was there not truly such a crisis in the Church? No one back then who was aware of the ecclesiastical debacle that had accumulated since the close of the Council could have doubted the Archbishop's sincere evocation of this canon, given the present state of the Church.

It was the Pope in fact who ignored his own canon which provided this defense, condemning the Archbishop's action in a decree that contradicted his own Canon Law in the process--though it was his own unwillingness to remove Catholic Tradition from under the gun that precipitated the Archbishop's consecrations, not any sudden schismatic desire to reject the papacy itself--on the surface something highly implausible. This claim of schism was patently bogus. But John Paul couldn't bring himself to accept that it was bogus--because to do so would have meant entertaining the possibility that his own policies, not anything the Archbishop said or did, had been destructive to the faith.

"First, there is no need to "reunify with the Church." That unity was never broken, despite the erroneous statements by John Paul to the contrary."

Perhaps you should identify between your private opinion and assessment of the situation, and what the Church authoritatively teaches. I hate to say this, but your continuing SSPX propaganda on this site is just as destructive to souls as all the "private opinions" uttered by modernists from the pulpit, in CCD classes and in the media for the past 40 year. Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is the authoritative document on the matter--not your beloved private interpretation.

Also, the Pope is above Canon Law and his explanation of the actual applications of canon law resides with HIS authority, NOT yours. Why is this so difficult for you to fathom?

Modernists and SSPX adherents both are absolutely convinced of their own beloved private interpretations in matters where the Church has obviously taught otherwise.

What authoritative pronouncement has your diocesan ordinary or the Pope made directly to you that you must disobey. You bring up this "blind obedience" canard time after time, but as to this day, you have never cited anything that either one of them have ordered you to do against Faith and Morals or that is sinful.

1. "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is the authoritative document on the matter--not your beloved private interpretation."

No, Canon Law is the authoritative document. And it was this document which provided the Archbishop with the means to resist papal coercion. In this regard, the Archbishop's evocation of canon 1323 was certainly legitimate--because there was indeed a state of necessity. Nor could there be any doubt that the ultimate arbiter of whether or not there was such a state properly rested with the Archbishop and no one else, insofar as it was what he thought that mattered according to the Pope's own Canon Law. Canon 1323, after all, concerned exceptions permitted in conscience when a command or precept was violated for some reason.

It was this evocation of the law itself which the Pope did not wish to address. But the canon was nevertheless a reality, and justice demanded that it should have been considered, especially given that the so-called offense was latae sententiae--automatic--and given as well that the well-documented and widespread devastation in the Church was the background behind the consecrations. Instead the Pope dismissed the canon out of hand, never referring even once to it, thereby assuming the worst--namely, that the Archbishop and his followers acted solely in order to deny his papacy and were therefore in schism. This was patently false, even unreasonable, and an enormous injustice to innocent men who acted only to protect the ancient Mass from destruction by the Vatican.

2. "Also, the Pope is above Canon Law and his explanation of the actual applications of canon law resides with HIS authority, NOT yours. Why is this so difficult for you to fathom?"

This is one of your more foolish assertions. Canon Law IS the Pope's own law. He cannot be above himself! No canons were ever rescinded--nor could they be officially without due notification to the world and to the Archbishop in particular. Moreover, Canon Law is based on the Divine Law, which means that justice must always prevail in every instance. Certainly no one who is not guilty in conscience should ever be unjustly punished. That must be the bottom line. As I've said many times, the Pope is not limited from below, but he is limited from above and so cannot treat his subordinates according to his own whims, but must observe the rules of his own canons and treat others justly. Not to do so is an abuse of power, pure and simple. This holds especially true of a pontiff--someone who is prosecutor, judge and jury all at the same time.

3. "Modernists and SSPX adherents both are absolutely convinced of their own beloved private interpretations in matters where the Church has obviously taught otherwise."

The truth is just the opposite. SSPX does not interpret anything privately but observes all Church teachings. Because its adherents are traditionalists, they strictly follow the teachings of the Church--which include, by the way, the right of individuals to be treated justly by their pontiff and the right of individuals to resist when superiors, even a pope, would force them to act in ways harmful to the faith. There is nothing therefore inconsistent with resisting the Pope's modernist agenda--it is very much in keeping with traditional Catholic thought throughout the ages. Modernists, on the other hand, reject past Church teachings in favor of what is novel and heterodox. The reason you conflate the two is that you refuse to accept the legitimacy of the SSPX's claims of faith vis a vis the Pope. You place your trust in the Pope's authority even when it is out of sync with traditional Church thinking. This is wrong.

4. "You bring up this 'blind obedience' canard time after time, but as to this day, you have never cited anything that either one of them have ordered you to do against Faith and Morals or that is sinful."

Why bring me into the argument? The issue is whether the Pope was right to deny the Archbishop the mandate to consecrate, given that without such a mandate it was virtually certain the ancient Mass would not have survived. This would have been tremendously damaging to the Church--an incalculable evil. I had nothing to do with any of this. I simply go to Mass where I find the Mass to be inspiring and the priests to be devout and learned and dedicated to preaching the Gospel and handing-down to our children the true faith. What you don't like is the cogency of my argument. You rail against it. But facts are facts--and you have not proved me wrong on any single point.

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.