FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview (/showthread.php?tid=42378)

Pages: 1 2 3


54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - RomanitasPress - 02-18-2011

Just received from SSPX.org:

54 Answers from Bishop Fellay
(http://sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm)

A significant interview given by Bishop Fellay to the USA District wherein he comments on the main questions concerning the Church and SSPX. No issue has been skipped and we thank His Excellency for giving his time to answer our 54 questions.

We will be offering this comprehensive interview over a 2-day period in six parts: 1: Doctrinal discussions | 2: Motu proprio effects | 3: Assisi III | 4: Beatification of John Paul II? | 5: SSPX | 6: SSPX in USA and conclusion


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - SCG - 02-18-2011

I read it this morning and thought it was pretty good.


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - AndreasAngelopolitanus - 02-18-2011

I like the emphasis that these aren't "negotiations."




Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - James02 - 02-18-2011

He's selling out the SSPX!!  Any moment now and he'll show his traitorous plan !!!

</sarcasm>


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - kgurries - 02-18-2011

It sounds like the doctrinal discussions are just about over -- and that neither side has changed its position.  Rome apparently wanted to discussions in order to resolve the "doctrinal problems" with the SSPX.  The SSPX wanted the discussion in order to "witness" the true Faith to Rome -- to "make the Catholic Faith understood in Rome."  That's a pretty strong statement!!!  

At least the respective positions should be more clearly understood after this exercise.  I wonder what next steps we will see from this...


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - kgurries - 02-18-2011

Question 12 is a little problematic since it lumps Bishop Schneider together with Msgr. Gherardini in "producing genuine critiques of the documents of Vatican II."  In fact the former (Bishop Schneider) only critiques the erroneous interpretation and application of the documents of Vatican II.  Bishop Schneider calls for a new Syllabus of errors to correct the false interpretations and mis-applications.

Msgr. Gherardini's views are summarized here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/08/msgr-gherardini-on-vatican-ii.html

Bishop Schneider's views are summarized here:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-syllabus-of-errors.html

and further analyzed here in response to certain objections:  http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-misinterpretations-and.html
 


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - Historian - 02-18-2011

It's great to hear from Bp. Fellay himself instead of the rumor mill.  I can't wait for the next half to show up tomorrow.


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - Gerard - 02-18-2011

(02-18-2011, 02:23 PM)kgurries Wrote: It sounds like the doctrinal discussions are just about over -- and that neither side has changed its position.  Rome apparently wanted to discussions in order to resolve the "doctrinal problems" with the SSPX.  The SSPX wanted the discussion in order to "witness" the true Faith to Rome -- to "make the Catholic Faith understood in Rome."  That's a pretty strong statement!!!  

At least the respective positions should be more clearly understood after this exercise.  I wonder what next steps we will see from this...

We should probably pray that the Lord takes the witness of the SSPX (if it was representative of the truth and charitable) and produces some "reversions/ conversions" on the part of the participants.  If some members of the commission could be won over that would be quite a grace-filled momment. 

Maybe we should be even ambitious enough to pray that the Holy Father would be won over in his review of the talks. 


Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - kgurries - 02-18-2011

(02-18-2011, 03:41 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 02:23 PM)kgurries Wrote: It sounds like the doctrinal discussions are just about over -- and that neither side has changed its position.  Rome apparently wanted to discussions in order to resolve the "doctrinal problems" with the SSPX.  The SSPX wanted the discussion in order to "witness" the true Faith to Rome -- to "make the Catholic Faith understood in Rome."  That's a pretty strong statement!!!  

At least the respective positions should be more clearly understood after this exercise.  I wonder what next steps we will see from this...

We should probably pray that the Lord takes the witness of the SSPX (if it was representative of the truth and charitable) and produces some "reversions/ conversions" on the part of the participants.  If some members of the commission could be won over that would be quite a grace-filled momment. 

Maybe we should be even ambitious enough to pray that the Holy Father would be won over in his review of the talks. 

This touches on the much debated question: Can the Holy See really defect from the Faith and lose her own Tradition -- needing "witness" and conversion back to the true Faith?  Rorate Ceali recently commented in a post:

"However, even in the most unfavorable times, it would not be apt to confuse the severe human problems of the Church with a Rome which "must return to Tradition"; one does not return except to that which one has completely left..."

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/02/thoughts-on-wheat-and-tares.html

I think they are correct in this -- and I made a simlar observation elsewhere: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-rupture-theology.html




Re: 54 Answers from Bishop Fellay: the interview - Gerard - 02-18-2011

(02-18-2011, 03:51 PM)kgurries Wrote: This touches on the much debated question: Can the Holy See really defect from the Faith and lose her own Tradition -- needing "witness" and conversion back to the true Faith?  Rorate Ceali recently commented in a post:

"However, even in the most unfavorable times, it would not be apt to confuse the severe human problems of the Church with a Rome which "must return to Tradition"; one does not return except to that which one has completely left..."

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/02/thoughts-on-wheat-and-tares.html

I think they are correct in this -- and I made a simlar observation elsewhere: http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-rupture-theology.html 

The distinction needs to be made between the Holy See and the occupant of the Holy See.  Another distinction is that the Tradition is the Church's not the Holy See's but the Magisterium of the Church is bound by and serves that Tradition (sacred tradition) 

As Fr. Martin said, "I need never question or doubt a dogma to lose my faith.  All I need to do is be unfaithful to it." 

It is quite possible for the governing body of the Church to never explicitly deny a dogma or doctrine of the Church but simply ignore the majority of the teachings and instead devote its time and energy to temporal ideological matters. 

In other words, if I play the piano, one way of leaving the piano would be to take up another instrument, another way would be to stop regular playing and practice and instead pick away only periodically while devoting myself to something not directly related to piano playing. .  In the case of the second,  I might still play a piano on occasion and still be able to get through a few well-practiced tunes but  I won't be in shape and I'll let a lot of mistakes go through and be unable to prevent it.  By "returning" to a regimented study and practice routine, I can zero in on the mistakes and eliminate them, increase my repertoire and make a more integrated player and give a more convincing and moving performance of the music.

A Pope more interested in women, the papal states, the good life, politics, environmental issues, economic systems, philosophy etc. may not be that interested in defending and guarding the Church's doctrine and Traditions, but he's simply distracted by other "things" negligent but not absent. 

Before the Church defects, another Pope will be seated who will revivify the Church more or less.  B16 is no St. Pius X but he's done a modest amount that has breathed some life into the Church to prevent it from collapse.  He may do more or not, but another Pope will do something else and the Church will either grow or hobble along but never defect.