FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Interview with Bishop Fellay on the occasion of the General Chapter (DICI)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on the occasion of the General Chapter (July 16, 2012)
http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-wi...y-16-2012/

Doctrinal mutism is not the answer to the “silent apostasy”


DICI : How did the General Chapter go? How was the mood of the meeting?

Bishop Fellay : It took place in a rather hot atmosphere, since July is a particularly hot month in the Valais! But in a very busy schedule, where the members of the Chapter were able to freely exchange ideas, as it befits such a working meeting.

DICI : Were you able to discuss the relations with Rome? Were there any forbidden questions? The dissensions manifested within the SSPX these last moths, have they calm down?

Bishop Fellay : That makes for quite a few questions! Regarding Rome, we went to the very heart of the issues, and all the capitularies were able to study the complete file. Nothing was left aside and there were no taboos among us. It was my duty to exhibit with detail all the documentation exchanged with the Vatican, something which was rendered difficult by the obnoxious climate of recent months. This made it possible for us to conduct direct discussions which have cleared out the doubts and dissipated any misunderstandings, resulting in peace and unity of hearts, which of course is something to rejoice about.

DICI : How do you foresee the relations with Rome after this Chapter?

Bishop Fellay : All ambiguity has now been resolved among us. Very soon we will convey to Rome the position of the Chapter, which has been the occasion to specify our road map insisting upon the conservation of our identity, the only efficacious means to help the Church to restore Christendom. As I told you recently, “if we want to make fruitful the treasure of Tradition for the benefit of souls, we must both speak and act” (cf. interview of 8 June 2012, DICI #256). We cannot keep silent when facing the rampant loss of faith, the staggering fall of the number of vocations, and the decrease of religious practice. We cannot refrain from speaking when confronted with the “silent apostasy” and its causes. Doctrinal mutism is not the answer to this “silent apostasy” which even John Paul II denounced already in 2003.
Our approach is inspired not only by the doctrinal firmness of Archbishop Lefebvre but also by his pastoral charity. The Church has always considered that the best testimony to the truth is to be found in the early Christians’ unity built in prayer and charity. They had “but one heart and one soul,” as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 4, 32). Such a common ideal is also our watchword, Cor Unum being the name of the internal bulletin of the SSPX. Hence we distance ourselves resolutely from all those who have tried to take advantage of the situation in order to drive a wedge turning Society members against each other. Such a spirit does not come from God.

DICI : What are your thoughts on the appointment of Archbishop Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Bishop Fellay : It is nobody’s secret that the former bishop of Regensburg, where our seminary of Zaitzkofen is located, does not like us. After the courageous action of Benedict XVI on our behalf, in 2009, he refused to cooperate and treated us like if we were lepers! He is the one who stated that our seminary should be closed and that our students should go to the seminaries of their dioceses of origin, adding bluntly that “the four bishops of the SSPX should resign”! (cf. interview with Zeit Online, 8 May 2009).
For us what is more important and more alarming is his leading role at the head of the Congregation for the Faith, which must defend the Faith with the proper mission of fighting doctrinal errors and heresy. Numerous writings of Bishop Mueller on the real transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, on the dogma of Our Lady’s virginity, on the need of conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church… are questionable, to say the least! There is no doubt that these texts would have been in the past the object of an intervention of the Holy Office, which now is the very Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presided by him.

DICI : How do you see the future of the SSPX? In the midst of its fight for the Church’s Tradition, will the SSPX keep to the same knife’s edge?

Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder. It is not easy to keep, yet absolutely vital for the Church and the treasure of its Tradition. We are Catholic, we recognise the pope and the bishops, but above all else we must keep intact the Faith, source of God’s grace. Therefore we must avoid all that may endanger the Faith, without trying to become a replacement for the Church, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. Far from us the idea of establishing a parallel Church, of exercising a parallel magisterium!
This was well explained by Archbishop Lefebvre more than thirty years ago: he did not wish to hand down anything else but what he himself had received from the Church of two millennia. This is what we want also, following his lead, so that we may effectively help “to restore all things in Christ.” It is not us who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms. In a word, we maintain the faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and in the Church founded upon Peter, but we refuse all which contributes to the “self-demolition of the Church” acknowledged by Paul VI himself since 1968. May Our Lady, Mother of the Church, hasten the day of its authentic restoration!

(Source : FSSPX/MG – DICI n° 258)

Edits: Formatting, title.
Thanks for posting, CollegeCatholic.
So now we're back to this position:

Quote: Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder.

Isn't this backtracking from the letter to the bishops trashing their attitude, which is the exact one listed above.

From the letter:
Quote: This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us.
This is a reliable source but it does not seem to say anything definite.  
(07-16-2012, 12:49 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're back to this position:

Quote: Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder.

Isn't this backtracking from the letter to the bishops trashing their attitude, which is the exact one listed above.

From the letter:
Quote: This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us.

As I recall the sequence of events, there was a change in the proposal from Rome after the letter was written.
(07-16-2012, 12:49 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're back to this position:

Quote: Bishop Fellay : More than ever we must maintain the knife’s edge traced by our venerated founder.

Isn't this backtracking from the letter to the bishops trashing their attitude, which is the exact one listed above.

From the letter:
Quote: This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us.
What this tells us is that the Doctrinal Pramble was acceptable to Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father in April, but by June, someone altered it considerably enough to be unacceptable.
At least this seems clear to me
It'd be nice if Rome treated the Society somewhat fairly.
It shows us that Bp. Williamson and the other bishops were correct all along.  Bp. Fellay's letter to the 3 bishops was pollyanna-ish in the extreme.  He thinks because the Pope says something to him that, he can bank on it. 

There is a story that I read from one of the SSPX sites about how when LeFebvre met with JPII, the Holy Father was totally conciliar (in the good way) towards LeFebvre (oh sure, we can do that for you.  no problem) and someone else came into the room and told JPII not to give him anything.  LeFebvre said JPII's whole demeanor changed, the meeting ended and nothing came of all the concessions JPII spoke of. 

JPII was an actor before he was a priest and he used it to fool and manipulate quite a lot of very smart people.  Fr. Malachi Martin assumed from his meetings with JPII that the Holy Father was honest with him and that plus his Jesuit bias towards the Pope blinded him to the realities of JPII's liberalism and dubious orthodoxy up unitl right after he published Windswept House. 

As JPII was the actor, Pope Benedict is the master of disguises, he wears the vestments the liberals want him to wear when he's with them.  He wears traditional vestments when he wants to look traditional and fool people into thinking he is actually tradition minded. 

(07-16-2012, 02:10 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]As JPII was the actor, Pope Benedict is the master of disguises, he wears the vestments the liberals want him to wear when he's with them.  He wears traditional vestments when he wants to look traditional and fool people into thinking he is actually tradition minded. 
But he offers the TLM...in private....in secret.
But he does. Really.  :Hmm:
Subscribing...and here is the DICI link http://tinyurl.com/84l8pwv
Pages: 1 2