Fellay
Posted on 09/09/2011 4:27:39 PM PDT by NYer
Fellay
Before a key meeting in Rome, the leader of the traditionalists stressed that he was not prepared to make any compromises and also revealed some interesting behind the scenes happenings…
“If their aim is still to force us to accept the second Vatican Council, the discussions have been clear enough in showing that we have no intention of doing any such thing.”
These were the decisive but prudent words of Bernard Fellay, who was adamant he would not agree to any compromise with the Vatican. On the 15 August, Fellay spoke openly about the talks between the Lefebvrians and the Holy See during the “summer University” of the Society of St. Pius X, fonde by Monsignor Lefebvre.
The transcription of the public interview with the Lefebvrian superior, held by the Society’s press agent, the abbot Alain Lorans, was published a few days ago, on the eve of the meeting in Rome between Fellay and Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which should encapsulate two years of “doctrinal talks” between Rome and the traditionalists.
The Lefebvrian superior’s judgement on the discussions was anything but friendly: “They are not beneficial right now because there is a clash of mentalities… In any case, we are certainly not in agreement. If there is one thing we agree on, that is that we do not agree on anything.”
Monsignor Fellay, one of the Society’s four bishops, ordained against Rome’s will by Monsignor Lefebvre and whose excommunication was removed by Benedict XVI in 2009, called for “extreme prudence” in terms of their relationship with the Vatican, especially in view of next week’s meeting, of which he said he did not know what to expert.
The removal of Fellay’s excommunication, which also meant Monsignor Richard Williamson, an English bishop undergoing trial in Germany for denying the existence of gas chambre and the dimensions of the Holocaust, did not improve the Brotherhood’s position. The Society is not recognised by Rome and its ordinations, which have carried on over the years despite the ban imposed by bishops and the Vatican, are considered “illegal” by the Church.
“If the Society of St. Pius X i sto be recognised, the Vatican Secretary of State said in December 2009, they absolutely must recognise the Council and the teachings of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself.”
“People must not believe everything they hear,” the traditionalist superior told his followers. For example the rumours going round about Cardinal Levada making a “pro position” to the Brotherhood to allow it to entre into communion with the Holy See once again: “On what conditions?” Fellay asked himself, “the way I see it, there must be certain conditions.”
He went on to say that “there are those who say that up until now, they (the Vatican, editor’s note) have always tried to shove the Council down our throats. I don’t know. All I am saying is: We are moving on. We have our principles, above all faith… Without faith God can never like you, so our decisioni s made. Faith comes first, no matter what, it even comes before recognition by the Church. We need to be strong.”
During the long interview, “Fellay also revealed nemerous behind the scenes facts relating to the difficult but ongoing relations between the Vatican and the Brotherhood in recent years. A figure which stood out was Colombian cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, formerly president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in charge of improving relations with the traditionalists. Even after his retirement, when the former Holy Office took the Commission under its wing as was requested by Benedict XVI, the cardinal seems to have stayed in close contact with Fellay, keeping him up to date with what was going on in the Vatican.
Fellay also explained how the arrival of Pope Ratzinger on the papal throne “set something off” in the Vatican, changing the winds in favour of the traditionalists and opening the way for their potential reintegration: “However, thinking about it and as far asthe person himself is concerned, the mood has certainly changed. Even in the Vatican, his arrival gave courage to those who, calling themselves conservatives, were forced to hide.”
Still, with the revocation of excommunications and the Williamson case in 2009, relations “became more tense”: in June that year, Fellay claims he tried desperately to meet with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, but in vain. The traditionalist superior was “diverted” to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, cardinal Levada.
Lefebvre’s successor, underlined more than once the divisions that esiste inside the Vatican Curia and warned that any news arriving from Rome should be taken with a pinch of salt. Fellay used the example of an Augustinian monk who was excommunicated and espelle from Rome having “converted” to “Monsignor Lefebvre’s society.”
The first Freepontiff, Narsius I, began his Freepapacy on 9/10/2011. Strangely enough, it was a non-FreepCatholic who first recognized him as Freepontiff.
His first action as Freepope was to declare all sedafreepanists heretics...
Freegards, thanks for all the pings on FR.
Soon, God willing, the silly debate over Vatican II (yes, it was merely a pastoral, not a doctrinal, council) and the SSPX (they were so very right on so many things, and wrong on primarily one, i.e., consecrating four bishops instead of one in 1988) will be behind us, and then we can worry over far more important things. Like restoring Traditional Catholicism.
"In 1960 it will become clearer"
If the great saints had been around post-1960 they might have become more discriminating as to what they obeyed and what they questioned as being the work of the devil.
“pope Narses” is not a “strawman”.Really?
It is sarcasm.Ah, sarcasm.
Perhaps my sarcasm hurt your feelings. If so, I again apologize.No, my feelings were simple boredom. As for your apology, you say "again". Sad, I must have missed the first time you admitted error. Nonetheless, I accept your admission and apology.
Ah, were I a FreePope, I might become a numerologist. 9/10/11 seems a valid date to accept a Tiara. Were I so inclined.
:)
There’s no question that Mass in Latin is beautiful, but the Church was clear that this practice must cease. I think for the good of the Church, I think the results of Vatican II must be upheld.
?? Somehow I missed that dictum.
Is there a link for this ?
I’m not being confrontational about this, I just want both sides of the issue.
Doh! Sorry, I was showing screen savers to the twins and the little monkey on the other computer, accidentally posted twice.
“Soon, God willing, the silly debate over Vatican II and the SSPX ... will be behind us, and then we can worry over far more important things. Like restoring Traditional Catholicism”
Amen!
Here’s the thing about the latin Mass I’ve observed, and I’ve never been to one. The more a Catholic is into things like priestesses, clergy in “relationships”, abortion and gay marriage the more they seem to hate the latin Mass, and like hippy dippy side of the liturgy that has occured in recent years. The more a Catholic rejects these things, the more they seem to dig the latin Mass. Sometimes you see folks that are so into it they hate even reverent Masses in the vernacular, which seems to me to be going a little far. I’d take a good regular Mass over a latin Mass where the priest was using puppets. The thing is, any priest that would bother in the first place to say a latin Mass today isn’t going to go to the trouble just to do it irreverently. At least I haven’t heard of it happening.
Make of that what you will.
Freegards
Quite the contrary!!! Vatican II specifically required the retention of Latin (with small parts to be introduced in the vernacular, like the readings) as well as pride of place for Gregorian chant and the priest facing East with the people!
This is what is so frustrating/infuriating for orthodox Catholics. Post-VII Catholics have been so thoroughly propagandized by the false notions of the "spirit of VII" that they spout off nonsense like "There’s no question that Mass in Latin is beautiful, but the Church was clear that this practice must cease" without thinking twice or even realizing what a colossal falsehood it represents.
The mass as we know it since Vatican II (Novus Ordo, in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people, communion standing in the paw, hymns replacing the Gregorian chant propers, etc etc etc) was no where envisioned in the documents of VII.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Actually, I’m not Catholic. I’m Jewish, but many of my family members were Catholic, and I know more about being Catholic than I do being Jewish, in fact, I’ve been to Mass more than synogogue. (My parents were leftist Democrat Jews who were anti-Israel, so synogogue was out of the question. My grandfather was concerned for my soul, so he took me to Mass.)
In any event, upon further review, and based on the links I’ve received, I think you’re right. I stand corrected.
No problem. (Since this thread is labelled CATHOLIC CAUCUS, I wrongly assumed I was posting to ... a Catholic.)
Ping
Then they should have no problem accepting the authority of Benedict XVI.
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.