Posted on 07/21/2004 7:23:09 AM PDT by Mershon
Exclusive interview with His Excellency Bishop Fellay : "We are firm, but not unreachable." 19/7/2004
Summary : Last May, the "Latin Mass" Magazine published an interview of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The integral text of this interview is available in the Documents section. His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, was kind enough to answer the questions of DICI regarding the proposals made by the Cardinal in favor of Tradition in his interview.
DICI: In this interview for the Latin Mass magazine, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos does more than just stretch out a hand to the faithful attached to Tradition, he affirms that the Holy Father holds his arms open. Aren’t you touched by such a generous offer? Bishop Fellay: I am very much touched by this gesture and do not doubt the generosity behind it. But I have to remark, at the same time, that the cardinal minimizes as much as he can the real difficulties which exist on both sides. On the side of the local bishops, he only wants to see "confusion" and "hesitations" to acknowledge the "right of citizenship" of the Tridentine Mass, whereas there is a real opposition to the traditional doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice. To be convinced of this, you merely have to look at the very reserved reactions of the bishops to the recent disciplinary document Redemptionis sacramentum. Apparently, nobody is interested in this call to order! There are neither abuses, nor liturgical scandals! And as for the faithful of Tradition, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos only acknowledges that they have a specific "sensibility" and a "perception" all their own, whereas it is really a question of fidelity to the doctrine of the Church of all times. All these euphemisms indicate the diplomacy of the cardinal, but they do not succeed in hiding his embarrassment: how can he solve the painful situation of the Society of Saint Pius X without raising the doctrinal issues? Honestly, if it were only a matter of dissipating the "confusion" of the bishops and of acknowledging the legitimacy of the traditionalist "sensibility", I believe that the crisis would have been solved long ago. But what is at stake goes far beyond the realm of confusion and sensibility.
DICI: Aren’t you afraid of appearing mired in an attitude which is constantly critical and negative? Bishop Fellay: On the contrary, ever since the beginning of our conversations with Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, we have been making positive proposals. But we must be sure, first of all, that the pillars holding up the bridge between Rome and us are sturdy. These pillars are doctrinal. We cannot be silent on this reality without the risk that – sooner or later – all our efforts for a solution will fail. The solution of the cardinal is to propose a practical agreement, minimizing fundamental differences as much as possible. Is it possible? Can cordial words stave off the hard blows of the crisis which shakes the Church? I do not think so.
DICI: So for you, it is doctrine, integral doctrine, or nothing? Doesn’t this position of "all or nothing" lack realism? Bishop Fellay: We are firm but not unreachable. Doubtless doctrine is fundamental, but we do think there are some preliminary stages to go through. That is the reason why, from the very beginning, we proposed two preliminary conditions to the Roman authorities. These conditions would make it possible to create an atmosphere of confidence which would be favorable to solving the problem of Ecône. These conditions are: the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication against the bishops of the Society and the acknowledgment of the right for every priest to celebrate the traditional Mass.
DICI: How do you see this withdrawal of the excommunication? Bishop Fellay: What has been done for the Orthodox could be done a fortiori for us. Rome lifted the excommunication against them without their changing anything in their attitude towards the Holy See. Could they not adopt the same measure toward us who have never been separated from Rome and have always acknowledge the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as defined by Vatican Council I? Indeed, the four bishops consecrated in 1988 took the oath of fidelity to the Holy See, and ever since they have always professed their attachment to the Holy See and the Sovereign Pontiff. They took all kinds of dispositions in order to show that they had no intention of creating a parallel hierarchy. I recalled this again in my press conference in Rome on February 2nd. This withdrawal of the decree of excommunication would create a new atmosphere, indispensable for going any further. Among other things, it would enable the persecuted priests and faithful to see that their attachment to Tradition is no fault, but that it was motivated by all these grievous liturgical scandals which Redemptionis sacramentum very rightly points out without, however, considering their cause, which is undoubtedly the liturgical reform itself.
DICI: And you ask for this withdrawal unilaterally, without obliging yourself to grant anything in return? Bishop Fellay: If the decree of excommunication were withdrawn, the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X could go to Rome, just like the diocesan bishops for their ad limina visit. They would give an account of their apostolic work, and the Holy See could observe the development of the "experience of Tradition" which Archbishop Lefebvre always desired to make for the good of the Church and of souls. There would be no need of any further commitment. It would simply be a matter of giving an account, on the part of the Society, and of taking stock, on the part of Rome, of the development of the experience of Tradition.
DICI: Do you not feel that you have been heard at least as far as your second preliminary request is concerned, i.e. the acknowledgment of "the right of citizenship" of the Tridentine Mass? Bishop Fellay: I cannot help but approve the praiseworthy effort of Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos to rehabilitate the Mass, but there also, I can only see a certain embarrassment: a right of citizenship conceded by the Holy Father, is it a right or a concession? The difference is not slight. We do not want to be granted a specific status which would be the hallmark of some liturgical "specificity". We are asking for a right which has never been lost: the freedom of the Mass for everybody. Because what we are attached to is the common patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church.
DICI: Even if you are not opposed to a dialogue with Rome, you nevertheless give the impression of practicing a "wait and see" policy. Do you not think it is time to get out of this marginalized position and commit yourself now, as they invite you to, in order to be more fruitful in the very serious situation in which the Church finds itself? Bishop Fellay: The position of the Society is not wait and see, but rather ora et labora, pray and work! Our priests are working for the restoration of the reign of Our Lord daily, with the families, the schools, etc. These 450 priests are more than committed, they are overworked. Everywhere in the world, people are asking for them. We would need three times as many! What would really marginalize us would be a concession closing off Tradition in a kind of Indian reservation or enclave within the Church. In truth, it is our concern for fruitfulness at the service of the Church and of souls which obliges us to request a true liberty for Tradition. The present state of the Church and the world is too serious for us to convince Rome that with a mere traditional "sensibility" (one that is strictly monitored) we could truly fight against the "silent apostasy" denounced by John-Paul II in Ecclesia in Europa. It would be altogether dishonest. But the Roman authorities, if they want to, can give back to Tradition its "right of citizenship" everywhere and for everyone.
I stand corrected. The FSSP still performs the tonsure, and may ordain subdeacons, since it utilizes the 1962 Missal.
He seems to have been nuked. Did I miss something?
Not that I'm aware of.
He may be a previous bannee, and the admins identified his previous moniker. If you're banned, you're banned in all future incarnations as well.
"They actually had lots of priests back then--prior to the GREAT RENEWAL in the wake of that magnanimous council"
Thank God that vocations in traditionalist orders continue to flourish....
http://www.sspx.org/RCRpdfs/2004_rcrs/july_2004_rcr.pdf
And as a matter of fact, vocations to traditional orders in union with Peter continue to fluorish even more abundantly, with the FSSP having more than 120 applicants last year alone.
Due to limited space, however, they could accept only 18. The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is also experiencing tremendous.
The Institute of Christ the King is also experiencing tremendous growth as well.
Clearly traditionalist seminaries need to expand to meet the growing demand. Hopefully some of those 120 FSSP applicants won't feel forced to find a spot in one of the empty novus ordo seminaries in the meantime.
Thankfully growing numbers of Catholics are finally realizing that supporting any novus ordo operation is a waste of money.
Let's pray it's not a case of too-little, too-late.
Actually, the Pontifical Josephinum in Ohio is orthodox, and I was told by someone who knows, that more than half of their seminarians are wanting to say the Traditional Latin Mass. Yes, they must be selective, but there are a few Novus Ordo seminaries that aren't bad.
The "doctrinal issues" are basic to the faith and do not refer specifically to Vatican II. In fact, Vatican II defined nothing. He was referring, in particular, to the Catholic concept of Sacrifice as a true immolation and re-presentation of Calvary--that which had been affirmed at Trent--and not that of praise or thanksgiving, the Protestant concept. The Church in the past thirty-plus years has tried to ignore Trent and its doctrines. But to do so is to ignore the Catholic faith itself, so there can be no compromise on this whatsoever. Until Rome relents, it is in conflict with its own history and its own past and its own faith. The modernists may try to suppress this truth--but it will fail.
Your talk of "re-entering" the Church is misguided. The SSPX is a part of the Church. The excommunications, while legal, are moral nullities and had no true effect. Bishop Fellay understands this, so he is in no hurry. He realizes God is in charge and has been protecting the Society up to now free from corruption--precisely by setting it apart. When the time is ripe the regularization will happen--but it makes no sense as long as Rome has gone off on its own revolutionary tangents.
The suppression of the Novus Ordo is necessary because it is a protestantizing Mass in direct opposition to Trent. That is to say, it is not a Catholic Mass. The two Masses are simply irreconcileable, each belonging to a different religion. Do you think the modernist bishops don't realize this? This is why they despise the traditional Mass and have always sought to suppress it. It was why Roman modernists persecuted Lefebvre in the first place. The old Mass represents the doctrines and theology of a Church they opposed and still oppose.
You were right the first time.
"The NO Mass does not manifest faith in the Real Presence"
It "does not manifest faith". He is right. It hides the faith as though it were an embarrassment. Any expression of adoration is deliberately suppressed.
GIRM:
3. Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the Lord's real presence under the eucharistic species, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council[6] and other documents of the Church's Magisterium[7] in the same sense and with the same words that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith,[8] is proclaimed in the celebration of Mass not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that interior disposition and outward expression of supreme reverence and adoration in which the Eucharistic Liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people is drawn on Holy Thursday of the Lord's Supper, and on the solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, to venerate this wonderful Sacrament by a special form of adoration.6. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 7, 47; Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, nos. 5, 18.
7. Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani generis, 12 August 1950: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale (Vatican City; hereafter, AAS), 42 (1950), pp. 570-571; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Mysterium fidei, On the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, 3 September 1965 : AAS 57(1965), pp. 762-769; Paul VI, Solemn Profession of Faith, 30 June 1968 , nos. 24-26: AAS 60 (1968), pp. 442-443; Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, On the worship of the Eucharist, 25 May 1967 , nos. 3f, 9: AAS 59 (1967), pp. 543, 547.
8. Cf. Council of Trent, session 13, Decretum de ss. Eucharistia, 11 October 1551: Denz-Schön, 1635-1661.
And in the Missal:
He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it on the paten, and genuflects in adoration. Then he continues:... He shows the consecrated chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration.
There is also added:
Supplices ergo te, Domine, deprecamur, ut haec munera, quae tibi sacranda detulimus, eodem Spiritu sanctificare digneris, ut Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi, cuius mandato haec mysteria celebramus. (EP III)
Which lacks the Cranmerian "for us" in the Roman Canon.
"Your talk of "re-entering" the Church is misguided."
Yawn...
"The SSPX is a part of the Church. The excommunications, while legal, are moral nullities and had no true effect."
In your own personal opinion.
Let us all continue to pray for the regularization of the SSPX with the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which, there is no salvation. One can be connected to the body without being in the heart of the Church. The new code of canon law diffentiates between varying degrees of "communion" with the Church. In fact, one need not be heretical nor schismatic, but still might be "imperfectly connected" or in "imperfect communion" with the Church.
Only the Pope decides who is, and who is not in perfect communion. Why have a continuing dialogue if there is no need for it?
Let us all reignite our prayers for this, that God's will may be done, and that the modernists within the Church, may all be sent scurrying under bushel baskets.
"That is to say, it is not a Catholic Mass. The two Masses are simply irreconcileable, each belonging to a different religion."
In your personal opinion. This is a heretical point of view that is not reconcilable with Church teaching. A Pope cannot promulgate a new liturgy that is not Catholic. This goes against the indefectability of the Church. The logical conclusion from this is sedevacantism--whether you recognize or acknowledge it or not.
Exactly.
In grave matters, of high importance to the formation of Christian morals, the Church, when enacting laws that concern all, can ordain nothing contrary to the Gospel or to natural reason.... Just as she can define nothing as vicious which in fact is virtuous, nor as virtuous which is vicious, so neither, in promulgating her laws, can she approve anything contrary to the Gospel or to reason. If, by any express judgment, or in enacting a law, she approved what is wrong or reproved what is right, the error would not merely be a disaster for the faithful, it would also be, in a way, opposed to the faith which approves every virtue and condemns all vices. Further, Christ has commanded us to obey the laws of the Church, saying: Do all that they say unto you.... and: Whoso heareth you heareth me...; so that if the Church should err herein Christ would be the author of our errors. (Melchior Cano, De Locis Theologicis, lib. V, cap. v, concl. 2)
The Sovereign Pontiff will never be deceived into commanding a vice such as usury, or forbidding a virtue such as restitution, since these things are good or bad in themselves; similarly, he will never be deceived into commanding anything contrary to salvation, such as the necessity of circumcision, or the observance of the Sabbath, or into forbidding anything necessary for salvation, such as Baptism or the Eucharist. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, cap. v)
... as for the laws proposed to the whole Church, such as those drawn up by a General Council or incorporated in the Corpus Juris, granting the general approbation they enjoy, it is difficult to admit that they contain even prudential error, so that they are not to be waived without some special permission. (John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 3, a. 3, no. 5; vol. VII, p. 311)
After Suarez and Banez, John of St. Thomas adds that the Church can err as regards the circumstances, application and execution of the law, for example by issuing too many precepts and censures, and applying them too strictly. For, he says, all that seems rather to pertain to the prudence and surrounding modalities of the law than to its substance and morality. Cano thinks likewise.... However, when we are concerned with laws laid down for all Christians, it is only out of regard for these very learned men that their reservations are to be entertained: I should not dare to make them mine. (Billuart, De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 5)
The great prudential precepts, ordained for the general good of the Church, are closely and immediately connected with the absolute precepts of revelation, whence they stem as from their proper root; so that they participate in a direct and privileged way in their infallibility. It can be said that the infallibility that guarantees them is absolute—not, doubtless, directly and formally, but radically and fundamentally. It follows that they can never prescribe anything immoral or pernicious, anything that sins against the evangelical law or the natural law. Since the Church is assisted in the task of leading men to eternal life, she will not mislead them by erring either about what has to be believed or about what has to be done: if, for example, the Gospel had contained a commandment to communicate always under two kinds, she would never have been able to ordain communion under one; and similarly, she cannot enjoin on her children any acts that clash with the natural law, anything that partakes for example of idolatry, lying, or injustice. Theologians are here unanimous...I have mentioned several of these measures of general interest. It must be insisted that they always arise as consequences or determinations of the great ordinances of Scripture. The laws of fasting and abstinence for example are bound up with the Gospel precept to do penance (Matt. xi. 21). The laws prescribing Sunday attendance at Mass, or again, the mode of celebrating Mass, the use of unleavened bread in the Western Church, are bound up with the commandment to commemorate the sacrifice of Holy Thursday (1 Cor. xi. 24). (Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. 1, VIII, II, 2, B, 1)
1. You consistently recite the fraudulent GIRM to prove your point. But this is a second version, designed to deceive. The first version shocked traditional theologians and forced a re-write using all the right terminology.
2. Citing Vatican II or Humani has no relevance.
3. You conveniently leave out that genuflections have everywhere been ELIMINATED deliberately from the Mass--except at the Consecration--and has become optional. You prove my point.
Humani=Humani Generis
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.