Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY CONCERNING HIS MEETING WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI
Papabile ^ | September 19, 2005 | DICI

Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer

Note from Papabile

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.

D.I.C.I.: How did this audience go?

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.

D.I.C.I.: Your Excellency, what do you now hope for?

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; fellay; pope; sspx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-220 next last

1 posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:44 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

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


2 posted on 09/20/2005 10:28:03 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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

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


3 posted on 09/20/2005 11:11:46 AM PDT by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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

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


4 posted on 09/20/2005 12:42:13 PM PDT by AliVeritas (Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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


5 posted on 09/20/2005 2:03:32 PM PDT by Rosary (Pray the rosary daily,wear the Brown scapular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
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.
6 posted on 09/20/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko; gbcdoj; NYer

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.


7 posted on 09/20/2005 2:50:37 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: annalex
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?
8 posted on 09/20/2005 3:01:24 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko

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


9 posted on 09/20/2005 3:08:04 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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...

10 posted on 09/20/2005 3:34:25 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
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.


11 posted on 09/20/2005 3:59:45 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"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.


12 posted on 09/20/2005 4:01:21 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"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?

;)


13 posted on 09/20/2005 4:19:18 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


14 posted on 09/20/2005 4:29:25 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

Whatever.


15 posted on 09/20/2005 4:35:14 PM PDT by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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?


16 posted on 09/20/2005 6:05:58 PM PDT by charliemarlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"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.


17 posted on 09/20/2005 6:18:49 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dsc; NYer
"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?

18 posted on 09/20/2005 6:25:41 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Behold thy mother." -Our Lord Jesus Christ, John 19: 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

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


19 posted on 09/20/2005 6:29:07 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dsc

LOL! I can relate... :-)


20 posted on 09/20/2005 6:30:23 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Behold thy mother." -Our Lord Jesus Christ, John 19: 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I wish those who claim 100% obedience to Holy Father would have the shepherd's heart he has for the SSPX and act just as gently with as much patience as he, anticipating that some day not too long from now the situation could be made regular. How embarrassing it will be for those who heaped scorn to then be asked to then be their coworkers.

I don't think either Pope has ever been as nasty to them as some comments are on this board that seem to relish the separation that exists.

The Church could make very good use of the SSPX because it is a strong orthodox order that will be solicitous for the salvation of souls and the glory of God. Very low pervert and heresy rate here compared to those clerics "in union" with Rome. These ends are so important that the SSPX for its part should drop its "Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil" overstated generalization which while worthy of academic debating point should not be enough to cause them to delay regularization. Salvation of souls and God's glory are #1.

Signed again, Piers-the-Ploughman, Novus Ordo catholic
21 posted on 09/20/2005 6:57:57 PM PDT by Piers-the-Ploughman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman
I don't think either Pope has ever been as nasty to them as some comments are on this board that seem to relish the separation that exists.

Agreed! Some, as you well know, are holier than the pope.

The Church could make very good use of the SSPX because it is a strong orthodox order that will be solicitous for the salvation of souls and the glory of God.

Quite true! However, the SSPX must eventually come to grips with VCII, and its dissent with the teaching authority of the Church. THAT will be the greatest challenge.

22 posted on 09/20/2005 8:03:59 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman
Sometimes I wonder about those who inveigh against the SSPX: how many people have they brought back into the Church using those tactics, that language, with their demeanor? I don't wonder for very long, though.

Ranting used to give me pleasure. It didn't actually accomplish anything, but it did give me the pleasure of hearing my own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.

Once in a while, it attracted to me people who also loved hearing their own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.

Now I'll probably be accused of being arrogant.
23 posted on 09/20/2005 8:23:57 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko

"Now I'll probably be accused of being arrogant."

Oh, sooner or later. It's a standard ploy.


24 posted on 09/20/2005 8:40:59 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman
I don't think either Pope has ever been as nasty to them as some comments are on this board that seem to relish the separation that exists.

So true.

25 posted on 09/20/2005 9:37:38 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Benedicamus Domino.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer
We must force the Roman authorities to admit

Excuse me?

26 posted on 09/20/2005 9:45:39 PM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic

"Excuse me?"

I'm hoping that's a translation problem, and what he means is using the force of reason.


27 posted on 09/21/2005 2:30:43 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Yeah. The rest is projection that the Pope has to keep the libs in camp in the Catholic Church so he can't accept Tradition ect when the fact is Williamson is causing Fellay to move to ever more extreme positions - not that he doesn't hold to those ideas but he normally doesn't show his true thoughts to the public.

And don't expect Fellay to dress Williamson down for his hateful antisemitism. The society will conctinue to become eeven more insane having gulped the hate-the-Jews kool aid

28 posted on 09/21/2005 4:06:40 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman; bornacatholic
See what I mean? (what I typed in #23)
29 posted on 09/21/2005 4:34:50 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dsc

the sspx is a quintessential liberal outfit. It choses when to accept or reject authority; it chooses what doctrines to accept and what doctrines to reject; it is the quintessential liberal cafteria catholic outfit; it is different from other liberal outfits because it hides its liberalism beneath the Thurible's smoke.


30 posted on 09/21/2005 4:44:40 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman

Fellay labelling the mass evil (that's debatable?) is only one of many heresies he must repent of.


31 posted on 09/21/2005 4:47:12 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic; dsc; Mike Fieschko

Whatever.


32 posted on 09/21/2005 4:55:46 AM PDT by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko
Sometimes I wonder about those who inveigh against the SSPX: how many people have they brought back into the Church using those tactics, that language, with their demeanor? I don't wonder for very long, though.

*I watch the sspx savagely attack the Body of Christ.I know the sspx has caused those weak in Faith to abandon their fidelity to their Confirmational promises/ duties and to break with the Church Jesus established. I know how that endangers their immortal souls.

*I wonder how silence or timidity in the face of savage attacks is "successful" in winning back souls for Christ. I rather think it might convince onlookers of the "justice" of this schism and further erode the Faith and confidence of Christians in union with Rome that the Church Jesus established has not apostasized and been taken over my Satan's henchmen.

*It is Tradition that silence in the face of evil is complicity.

*In any event, I don't delude myself I am the instrument of the Holy Spirit in re reconversion. That is solely the action of the Holy Spirit. I imitate the Early Church Fathers in their reaction to schism. They didn't suffer silently the savage, hateful and public attacks against she they loved. In my neck of the woods, silence or inaction in the face of savage attakcs against loved ones is considered, well, unmanly.

*I am one of the few on here who acts like a Traditioanlist when it comes to a schism. Read your Bible. Read the Early Church Fathers; read what they said to schismatics

Ranting used to give me pleasure. It didn't actually accomplish anything, but it did give me the pleasure of hearing my own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.

*Mike, I hope it really isn't your arguement the Early Church Fathers were acting out of ego-gratification not love for Holy Mother Church.

*One acts like as Christian not because one can see tangible results in his lifetime. One acts like a Christian because he is a Christian; and it is Christian to publicly and forcefully stand in opposition to those attacking his Church. As to experiencing pleasure in defending one's Faith, is that now sin?

* I have yet to publicly take to task those who don't act like Traditionalists in the face of a schism but I have been taken to task for acting like a Traditionalist in the face of a schism. It is rather odd that timidity, pacificism, and silence is now thought a useful approach towards schism.

* Maybe the critics of the Church who claim the Church in the West has been "feminized" to such an extent that the female values of compromise and non-confrontationalism now so predominate and, subsequently, weaken men that the Church in the west is in mortal peril are more right that they imagine.

Once in a while, it attracted to me people who also loved hearing their own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.

Now I'll probably be accused of being arrogant.

* Brother mike, I don't know you but from reading your posts I'd have to say you are a very knowledgeable and intelligent man but there is no doubt we see things differently when it comes to a Christian response to schism.

33 posted on 09/21/2005 5:29:35 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"but I have been taken to task for acting like a Traditionalist in the face of a schism"

When Russia was a monarchy, the communists were in rebellion against the government. Then the communists became the government. According to the reasoning you are using here, to rebel against the communist government would have made one a communist.

You simply refuse even to acknowledge the argument that the SSPX's disobedience to some men who occupied high office in the Church, and used that power to damage the Church, is loyalty to the higher authority.


34 posted on 09/21/2005 5:38:12 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Before I go off to work, I only have time for a brief comment (a question and a comment, really).

there is no doubt we see things differently when it comes to a Christian response to schism.

Is there a goal you have considered or settled on, which your remarks are intended to achieve?

It seems to me, that the Pope's goal is to achieve reunion, or fuller communion, or however one wants to describe getting the SSPX back into a regular (in both senses) relationship with the Vatican. In that sense, yes I do have a different response: I trust and endorse, and imitate, the Pope's approach.
35 posted on 09/21/2005 5:55:20 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"I wonder how silence or timidity in the face of savage attacks is "successful" in winning back souls for Christ. I rather think it might convince onlookers of the "justice" of this schism"

I never even heard of the SSPX before I came to FR. Tabula rasa, no knowledge, no opinion.

It was watching the vicious ranting of its detractors and the calm, measured responses of its defenders that first piqued my interest in the controversy. It was clear which side was acting like liberals.

Unfortunately, seven years down the road, I'm not any closer to seeing which side is correct.

There are very strong arguments in support of the necessity of Lefebvre ordaining bishops. On the other hand, this episode hasn't played out yet, and may not in my lifetime, so I just don't know.

One thing I am sure of, though: the vituperation of some of the society's detractors does a lot to create sympathy for them, and little or no harm to them.


36 posted on 09/21/2005 5:55:59 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dsc
drawing an analogy between a Church established by the God-Man, Jesus, and a political entity isn't the most convincing way to begin an arguement.

The Catholic Church is unique and we know from the promises of Christ it cannot fail.

37 posted on 09/21/2005 6:17:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic

Dear aposiopetic,

In the French, it reads, "Il faudra faire admettre aux autorités romaines..."

It's been a lot of years since I took French, but "faudra" is one of the future tenses of a verb that translates as "to be necessary" or "must." "Faire" is "to do," or when combined with other verbs, it can mean "is" (As in, "Il fait chaud," "It is hot," literally, "It does hot."), or also translates at times, "to make [something happen]," or "to cause," when used in conjunction with another verb, as it is here, with "admettre." "Admettre" is the verb "to admit."

So, I'd string it together as roughly, "It is necessary to make [the Roman authorities] admit..."

I think that to translate it as "force" might be a little strong, but there may be idiomatic reasons for it of which I'm blithely unaware. But I think it's reasonable to say "to make admit."


sitetest


38 posted on 09/21/2005 6:19:16 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"The Catholic Church is unique and we know from the promises of Christ it cannot fail."

In the end, it will be victorious. That doesn't mean that there won't be battles along the way. And we have certainly seen that it in no way guarantees against bad bishops and even bad popes.


39 posted on 09/21/2005 6:26:14 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dsc
It was watching the vicious ranting of its detractors and the calm, measured responses of its defenders that first piqued my interest in the controversy. It was clear which side was acting like liberals.

You are not the only one. Many defenders of the SSPX have been contacted privately by lurkers for just those reasons.

One thing I am sure of, though: the vituperation of some of the society's detractors does a lot to create sympathy for them, and little or no harm to them.

God's genius at allowing evil in order to bring about a greater good is awesome.

40 posted on 09/21/2005 6:29:49 AM PDT by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Piers-the-Ploughman
The Church could make very good use of the SSPX because it is a strong orthodox order that will be solicitous for the salvation of souls and the glory of God.

Of course not everyone would agree with this statement of yours, I do, but I am curious why you hold this to be true. What reasons do you have for believing the SSPX is a "strong orthodox order", and what do you think that they do differently that causes them to be strong and orthodox as compared to other orders that you think are not "strong and orthodox"? Just curious.

41 posted on 09/21/2005 6:35:00 AM PDT by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko
Is there a goal you have considered or settled on, which your remarks are intended to achieve?

*Yes. My goal is, other than what I already posted, to act like a Traditionalist rather than to label myself a Traditionalist while acting like a liberal because actions speak louder than words

It seems to me, that the Pope's goal is to achieve reunion, or fuller communion, or however one wants to describe getting the SSPX back into a regular (in both senses) relationship with the Vatican. In that sense, yes I do have a different response: I trust and endorse, and imitate, the Pope's approach.

* I also trust the Pope and when my prayers he would be elected where answered I was delighted and 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 :)

But, I can't imitate the Pope because he is acting the diplomat in those negotiations with the sspx and I am not. And, I am not sure what the intent of the Pope is. I am sure of what the intent of tghe sspx is

Do you only try and correct the behavior of those in union with Rome? I am sure I haven't read all of your posts but, off the top of my head, I don't recall any posts directed at those in the schism telling them to quit attacking the Pope, the Magisterium, The Council, and the Mass because that is guaranteed to frustrate all attempts at an agreement while continuing to endanger the souls held captive by the schism? Or, is it only the Faithful who must be silent?

For what it is worth, I don't think the Pope is going to spend too much time on this schism. It is clear to me (I can't speak for the Pope) this schism is permanent and I want no part of these schismatics being welcomed back into the church corporately unless they first publicly renounce their many hersies and antisemitism. The worst thing that could happen is to invite them back into the church. That is an invitation to more mayhem and madness and the turmoil which follows every Council is subsiding. We have turned a corner and are headed for relatively smooth sailing and steering the Barque of Peter into the teeth of the Category 5 Schism will only bring more upheavel, destruction, and unhappiness.

The Schism wants no reunion. The Schism goes to Rome seeking surrender. Period. The Pope, I am confident, knows this.

Of course I pray for individual reconversions..

42 posted on 09/21/2005 6:46:56 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Unfortunately, seven years down the road, I'm not any closer to seeing which side is correct.

* It is the Catholic Church, not a Schism from the Catholic Church, which is correct. And, yes, I agree your inability to distinguish which is correct is unfortunate although I don't recall any posts from you suggesting the schism is wrong in its scandlaous behavior and charges against Pope, Council,and Mass, so, maybe you really are less conflicted than you think?

43 posted on 09/21/2005 6:52:36 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

"It is the Catholic Church, not a Schism from the Catholic Church, which is correct."

Yes, but the question is, who is in schism: the Mahoneys of the Church, or those who hold to tradition as it was before the Modernists gained so much power?

"although I don't recall any posts from you suggesting the schism is wrong in its scandlaous behavior and charges against Pope, Council,and Mass"

Perhaps if you gave me an example.


44 posted on 09/21/2005 7:07:00 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: murphE

"God's genius at allowing evil in order to bring about a greater good is awesome."

Absolutely, but I'd get a lot more sleep if I had a script.


45 posted on 09/21/2005 7:09:43 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Catechism of St. Pius XTH

Q: What is the Catholic Church?

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

10 Q: Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?

A: The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.

11 Q: Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?

A: Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thee shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever the shallot loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." And again: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."

12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

13 Q: How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?

A: From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

14 Q: Why is the Church called One?

A: The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.

...............

"although I don't recall any posts from you suggesting the schism is wrong in its scandlaous behavior and charges against Pope, Council,and Mass"

Perhaps if you gave me an example.

* I was asking you for an example of when you corrected the schims's supporters

46 posted on 09/21/2005 7:15:57 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

That's a catechism, and it doesn't (in the section you posted) deal with such matters as heretical or schismatic priests or popes. I very much doubt that Saint Pius X would agree that Mahoney should be obeyed when commanding endorsement of the abomination of sodomy.

"I was asking you for an example of when you corrected the schims's supporters"

Actually, what you said was that you hadn't seen an example, so I asked you for an example of something that needed correcting. If you give me such an example, I'll address it--tomorrow. I'm on Yokohama time.


47 posted on 09/21/2005 7:27:11 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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

Vatican II has both Pastoral and Dogmatic documents. The documents on the the Church, and Divine Revelation are dogmatic. The documents on the Formation of Priests and the Modern World and the like are Pastoral. The documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are a mix of dogma, prudential policy, and pastoral guideance.

48 posted on 09/21/2005 7:37:14 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dsc
However, I find that there are among its defenders many who act like liberals, and among its detractors none.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Co. are liberals in ecclesiology and discipline - picking and choosing on this topic just like the rest.

49 posted on 09/21/2005 7:39:01 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Thank you, sitetest.

I will paste the final paragraph below:

Il faudra faire admettre aux autorités romaines que nous ne pouvons suivre sans de sérieuses restrictions l’interprétation que l’on donne du concile et l’œcuménisme tel qu’il est pratiqué. Au fond, ce que nous espérons, c’est de faire comprendre un jour la raison d’être de la Tradition.

Here is how I would translate it:

It is necessary to get the Roman authorities to admit that we cannot follow without serious restrictions the interpretation given the council or ecumenism as practiced. Beneath it all what we hope is someday to make understood Tradition's raison d'etre.

If I were to regard this as merely a restatement of a general opposition to notions such as those expressed in Dei Verbum 8 and Sacrosanctum Concilium 21, would I be far off?

50 posted on 09/21/2005 9:52:45 AM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-220 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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