INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY CONCERNING HIS MEETING WITH POPE BENEDICT XVI

Papabile ^ | September 19, 2005 | DICI

[aposiopetic]

Thank you all for your replies. To be honest, I remain puzzled by Fellay's concluding remark. Can any of you tell me what SSPX says is the raison d'etre of Tradition? Is this a matter about which they claim some sort of special knowledge which, on their view, Rome lacks?

[dsc]

"You must be willingly deciding to remain ignorant."

I'm a bad old puddy tat.

[dsc]

"The traditions of the church are not the reasons why they are excommunicated."

Actually, it's my understanding that they are.

The reasoning goes like this, I think:

(1) Modernists in the Church trying to destroy it.
(2) Nobody holding out except SSPX.
(3) Can't do that without priests. Can't ordain priests without bishops.
(4) Modernists insist they will pick bishops, which means death of SSPX.
(5) To keep Tradition from being swept away and suppressed forever, it was necessary for SSPX to ordain bishops.

[dsc]

"Is this a matter about which they claim some sort of special knowledge which, on their view, Rome lacks?"

Not lacks, rejects.

Have you read Saint Pius X on modernists? SSPX holds that the modernists continued what Pius X saw them doing, and by the middle of the 20th century had gained enough influence to steer the Church away from authentic tradition.

Think of it as similar to the way leftists in America have gained ground step by step, until now we find ourselves completely divorced from the principles on which the country was founded.

After all, leftists and modernists both take their marching orders from Satan.

[dsc]

"He hasn;t abandoned His Church to heretical Popes. If you think that has happened"

The tactic of restating a person's position as a ridiculous extreme is one often used by liberals.

I never said anything about God "abandoning" His Church, or about any pope being heretical.

However, it is plain, historical fact that God has in the past allowed bad men to become bishops, and, arguably, popes.

Still trying to figure out what is at the root of your far-too-emotional refusal to face that fact.

[aposiopetic]

Thank you for sharing this insight. I agree completely that many acting in Rome's name (those invoking the so-called spirit of the Second Vatican Council come to mind) ignore or trash Tradition. But this is not what Fellay said. He is saying that Rome needs to be taught Tradition's raison d'etre. What does the Society teach is Tradition's raison d'etre?

[dsc]

"What does the Society teach is Tradition's raison d'etre?"

I'm afraid I don't know.

[aposiopetic]

Thanks for the honest reply. I know a few people who attend SSPX liturgies, and I am already asking them what Fellay meant. Meanwhile your previous post has made me want to read Saint Pius X on modernists. :-)

[gbcdoj]

Meanwhile your previous post has made me want to read Saint Pius X on modernists. :-)

St. Pius X - Pascendi Dominici Gregis - On the Doctrines of the Modernists.

A. Vieban, S.S. - "Who are the Modernists of the Encyclical?" - American Ecclesiastical Review.

[aposiopetic]

Thanks. Even I can click and read.

[gbcdoj]

Nobody holding out except SSPX

Yeah. The problem is that this is false reasoning. It is a Catholic dogma that the Apostolic See of Rome will always "hold out". Per the IVth Council of Constantinople:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.

I asked one of the SSPX apologists here about this and he told me that the Council was wrong, and said the same about Pope Sixtus IV's condemnation of "the Church of the City of Rome can err" as being "contrary to the holy Catholic faith" and as containing "manifest heresy" (Bull "Licet ea", Aug. 9, 1479). Go figure.

[TradicalRC]

Existentialists believe everything about nothing, while skeptics believe nothing about everything.

[Gerard.P]

It is a Catholic dogma that the Apostolic See of Rome will always "hold out". Per the IVth Council of Constantinople:

We have to define what "holding out" is. That can't possibly mean papal impeccability. Right?

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith.

Popes individually are not guaranteed salvation personally, correct? So, that would leave open the possibility of a Pope not maintaining the rule of faith in his person. Correct?

And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.

This then, begs the question: Just how bad can a Pope be? Where is the defined impossibility that the Apostolic See can't engage in? Once we find that untouchable place, everywhere before that point is possible.

I asked one of the SSPX apologists here about this and he told me that the Council was wrong, and said the same about Pope Sixtus IV's condemnation of "the Church of the City of Rome can err" as being "contrary to the holy Catholic faith" and as containing "manifest heresy" (Bull "Licet ea", Aug. 9, 1479). Go figure.

Was he a card-carrying member of the SSPX apologist's task force?

[dsc]

"I asked one of the SSPX apologists here about this and he told me that the Council was wrong"

Are you sure he didn't tell you that your interpretation of this passage is wrong?

I find nothing to disagree with in the passage, and nothing that contradicts SSPX.

Setting aside for the nonce matters of translation (which always makes me nervous), let's look at what it says.

"And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences."

Okay. Our Lord built his Church upon that rock. All parties are agreed.

"For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished"

. . . has always been . . . There's no promise for the future there. It doesn't say, "can never be attacked."

"Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches"

That's exactly what SSPX holds. However, they also hold that modenists within the Church are trying to separate the entire Church from its faith and doctrine (for which you can make a strong case), so they hold to the faith and doctrine, and the communion that the Apostolic See preached, at the time that document was written.

This entire line of argument, though, is begging the real questions.

Has the Church been under attack from within by those Saint Pius X called Modernists?

Have those Modernists introduced changes to the Catholic the faith and doctrine as it existed before they came along?

If so, what is their authority for so doing?

[bornacatholic]

The schism was solely about the disordered will of Marcel. His error about Tradition was the intellectual rationale (whioh was the defense mechanism shielding his ego from the truth about his perfidy). His memory was poorly functioning at the time of his schism, so poorly functioning he was, hopefully, and likely, not culpable for his schismatic acts.

[bornacatholic]

Hatred of schism... Nothing more Traditional than that.

Try reading the Early Church Fathers on schism some time. They'll either make you ears blister and encourage you to grow a set or they will make you take the position they are irrationally emotional and, presumably suspect.

Either way, it is your will and you have liberty to either set it with or against the Church Jesus established.

[Mike Fieschko]

Good morning.

Do you only try and correct the behavior of those in union with Rome?

The short answer is 'no'. The longer answer is that I spend little time reading the comments to Religion forum articles about the SSPX, Vatican II, the different forms of the Mass, etc., and even less time composing a comment of my own. Primarily, I spend little time because I've found that the discussions deteriorate quickly into spitting matches [insert image of two tomcats spitting]. When that happens, the discussion is very boring.

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 :)

'[A]ccept any and all'. I hope I'm not taking that phrase out of context, but it seems as if you have a wider view of the Pope's authority or competency than I do. I won't be drawn into a discussion of papal blunders, though.

[bornacatholic]

Good morning, brother. You are probably wise to avoid the incessant and interminable sspx vs Unity threads. We all seem to endlessly replow the same inert soil but I justify it to myself by thinking the Traditional error-must-be-opposed-or-complicity-must-be-assumed situation prevails in this instance; and, I tend to think it informs lurkers or newbies as to the facts of the matter.

I do read some of your threads and I appreciate your posting from Gueranger. I have his Liturgical Year collection.

I'll admit my idea of obedience is not quite that of St. Theresa of Avila's whose idea of fulfilling her vow of obedience extended to her obeying a rather odd command from her superior.

After speaking about her afflatic experiences her Superior ordered her to make a certain gesture towards he who appeared in her visions (Jesus). The gesture is what we would now describe as "flipping one off." Theresa obeyed the order but apologized in advance of the actions for obeying she who she promised to obey.

So, if Pope Benedict orders me to flip-off my Bishop I think I would be reluctant to comply :

However, if I lived in Los Angeles...

[gbcdoj]

There's no promise for the future there

But it's explicitly stated to be a consequence of a saying that "cannot fail of its effect".

Have those Modernists introduced changes to the Catholic the faith and doctrine as it existed before they came along?

No, the Catholic faith is always the same.

[gbcdoj]

Hi Gerard,

That can't possibly mean papal impeccability. Right?

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Popes are made sinless in virtue of their office.

So, that would leave open the possibility of a Pope not maintaining the rule of faith in his person.

I disagree and I refer you to Bellarmine's judgment about the impossibility of a heretical pope. In any case it is irrelevant since what we are discussing here is whether it could happen that the Roman Church cease to be Catholic, not whether the Pope could fall from his see, as would happen if he became a heretic.

Once we find that untouchable place, everywhere before that point is possible.

"For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor". Looks like a sufficient guarantee to me that the Catholic religion will never end up having to be based out of Econe. Of course, many in the SSPX don't see it that way.

What remains of the magisterium in the Church? ... Well, this magisterium, at least as regards the truths denied by the conciliar hierarchy, lies in Mgr Lefebvre in whom it can be found in a certain manner. He is the veritable echo of tradition, the faithful witness, the good shepherd whom simple sheep have been able to identify from the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Yes, the Church still has a living and perpetual magisterium and Mgr Lefebvre is its saviour. The indefectibility of the Church can be seen in the inflexibility of the Archbishop. (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Fideliter, n. 72 (1989), p. 10)

Was he a card-carrying member of the SSPX apologist's task force?

Not that I know of. Are you? :)