INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY CONCERNING HIS MEETING WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI

Papabile ^ | September 19, 2005 | DICI

[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.

[NYer]

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

[gbcdoj]

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

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

[AliVeritas]

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

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

[Rosary]

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

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[Mike Fieschko]

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?

[annalex]

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

[bornacatholic]

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...

[NYer]

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.

[Domestic Church]

"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.

[Tantumergo]

"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?

;)

[annalex]

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.

[CouncilofTrent]

Whatever.

[charliemarlow]

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?

[dsc]

"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.

[Pyro7480]

"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?

[dsc]

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

[Pyro7480]

LOL! I can relate... :-)