INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY CONCERNING HIS MEETING WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI

In the absence of a solid link, this is posted for your discernment and prayers.

If anyone wishes to read the French, it is here:

http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=1025

This is from the 18th, I can't find it anywhere else. Where did you get it?

http://www.dailycatholic.org/2005ecc.htm

May God grant graces to the Pope and guidance- strength to him as well as to the SSPX,who are trying to hold fast to the Faith,the Beautiful Old Latin Tridentine Mass ! Dominus Vobiscum

n.b. the link: it works, if you first click on the French language link on the left hand side, towards the bottom.

If when I go to the DICI site and pages are displayed in English, the link doesn't work for me. I have to first click on the French language link, then go to the actualite_read.php?id=1025 page.

I think that's because DICI hasn't yet translated the French. This English language version (on Papabile's site) was done by someone not at DICI.

I looked it over with my forgotten since school French and it seems to contain nothing in addition to the English translation posted by NYer.

In the sentence

'Il est certain que le pape a la volonté de régler rapidement cette situation',

should régler be translated as solve, handle, control, or what the situation?

Regulate or regularize, i.e. rule over or legitimize.

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.

*LOL Yeah, right Fellay. And three assertions you are Catholic in two sentences :) Yep, that's Tradition, baby.

Well, at least those assertions witness to the truth Fellay is, finally, realizing that as more and more is known about the sspx the less and less their pompous pretensions are taken seriously.

Fellay, the head honcho of the "catholic" sspx, which teaches the normative Mass is evil; the Second Vatican Ecuemnical Council taught errors; and the Jews as a race are cursed by God ought be grateful the Pope extends him such courtesy. I'd horse-whip him

And, as it is well-known the sspx lies in its propaganda (witness it's scandalous use of Card. Lara and his, supposed, idea that ordaining Bishops ain't schismatic); why ought we think Fellay is telling us the truth? We well-know the founder of the SSPX, lefebvre, for years said he didn't sign the documents of Vatican Two when he did, we well-know he signed protocols of agreement with Rome then repudiated it; when, exactly can their word or memories of events be trusted as reliable?

The only thing missing from the meeting was Fellay exiting the meeting and chanting "Keep Tradition alive" like another pius pretender to authentic ministry, Jesse Jackson, chanting "Keep hope alive"

Poor Pope Benedict having to deal with these nuts. And it ain't even Lent...

Here's an interesting commentary from WITL blogspot ...

Tears of a Schismatic

As if he wasn't before, Papabile proves himself again to be our resident SSPX go-to guy.

Apparently, the excommunicated SSPX head Bernard Fellay had to open his mouth in a lengthy interview with DICI -- Econe's in-house news agency....

Some snips:

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.

Um, Bernie, Vatican II is part of that Tradition. Accept it or else.

[In the papal audience] 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....

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.

Oh, Jesus. He blew it. He really blew it.... "Accusation of schism"? "Pretended excommunications"?

Yeah, it's safe to say now that Williamson basically speaks the mind of the group. Don't expect a reconciliation anytime soon. And there goes the universal indult right along with it.

"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.”

Time to play poker and call the bluff...let the Holy Mass as said and heard by past Saints be once again said openly in any Diocesan Church. Any who would be schismatic under such a choice of N.O or traditional latin should be squelched.

"I'd horse-whip him"

You display such anger and bitterness at the SSPX that you sound like someone who used to frequent their Masses, but had a major falling out with them.

Are you sure you're not being a bit coy about your past for a catholic guy?

;)

The only way to separate the issue of Tradition from the issue of Authority is to grant the universal indult. As long as the Mass of the Ages goes in catacombs, the SSPX will be forgiven by many for its insubordination. And those are the many who the Vatican should listen to the most, unless they want the cafeteria to reopen. On the other hand, if the indult is granted, SSPX remains with the marginal issues of ecumenical policy and maybe the extent of Papal authority.

If the Tridentine Mass is restored, the schism has the wind taken out of its sails. If not, we have another orthodox church spinoff in a generation or two, because the schismatics have a legitimate complaint.

Whatever.

This is a real question. Vatican II, although only a "pastoral" council according to Pope Paul VI (right?), is not to be questioned, according to most clerics and the hierarchy, etc.
But what is being defended? In other words, what achievements based on Vatican II are any good?

"Um, Bernie, Vatican II is part of that Tradition. Accept it or else."

What about the issue of VatII being a pastoral rather than a dogmatic council?

"Oh, Jesus. He blew it. He really blew it.... "Accusation of schism"? "Pretended excommunications"?

Why is that blowing it? Does not schism require intent? And if the reasons cited for the latae sentiae excommunications were not valid, then are they not "pretend" excommunications?

One thing I've learned over the years is that liberalism is of and from Satan, and it carries his particular stench in whatever guise is presents itself.

Therefore, when I'm trying to make sense of something like this, I ask myself, "Is one side acting like liberals? Is one side arguing like liberals, using the ploys and intellectual gymnastics typical of liberals?"

I was outraged to hear of bishops rushing to Rome to threaten the Pope. "If you rule in favor of our enemies, we will go into schism. Either we win, or we'll tear the whole thing down." IMO, that reeks of liberalism, and therefore of Satan.

I'm not an expert on the contents of VatII, and cannot readily distinguish between what it actually says and where the Modernists are abusing it through misinterpretation.

However, I find that there are among its defenders many who act like liberals, and among its detractors none. That alone tells me that, even if it contains no evil in and of itself, it lends itself to use as a tool of evil. You don't find liberals fighting for things that are good.

"Oh, Jesus. He blew it. He really blew it.... "Accusation of schism"? "Pretended excommunications"?
Why is that blowing it? Does not schism require intent?

More importantly, why is the blogger using the Holy Name of Our Lord vainly?

I myself have a real problem with bad language, and so am not in a position to be casting any f***ing stones.

LOL! I can relate... :-)