Rorate Caeli

Fellay speaks: "Turmoil" in the Church


The most respectable daily in Argentina, La Nación, published this Monday two articles based on interviews granted to its reporters by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay.

The most relevant excerpts of the first article, including Fellay's actual words:

"We have never moved away from the Church. We have always been and are Catholics, and we have always worked with the intent of remaining so. There are difficulties with the authority, but that does not mean that we deny it [the authority]."

..."There are men in the Vatican Curia who do not work for the Pope."

...
"The only problem which remains now is [of a] political [nature]. There is a part of the Church which does not love us, which considers us as dinosaurs, and Rome does not know how to manage this dialectic between the conservatives, as we are, and the progressives who do not want [to follow on] the same path. If [they] give us too much, the others would react."

...
He [Fellay] explained that, "until things improve", the links to the Catholic bishops and priests are very scarse. They do not maintain a dialogue, for instance, with Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio [S.J.], Archbishop of Buenos Aires and president of the Argentinian Episcopate. "Father Bouchacourt [head of the Latin American District of the FSSPX, whose headquarters are in Martínez, in the Greater Buenos Aires area] sent two letters to Cardinal Bergoglio, and did not receive an answer. That is, the silence comes more from him than from us," said Fellay.

...
"We have never intended to build a parallel Church or authority"..."The official Church has put us aside. We have been marginalized. That is true. Yet, they cannot say or prove that we are on the outside. It is interesting that in the motu proprio which rehabilitated the ancient Mass of the Tridentine Rite [Summorum Pontificum], the Pope says that the reason for his action is to work towards internal reconciliation in the Church. He is speaking about us. We have thus here the declaration of the Pope himself that we are not schismatics," he affirmed.
...

[On the current situation of the Church:]

"It is very complex," he answers. And he adds: "There are many currents which produce turmoils when they meet, and the authority has lost control over some of these currents. One example is the situation of a de facto schism which is noticed in North America, even though Rome wishes to prevent it from becoming a formal schism".


Part of the actual interview was published in the second article, whose questions and answers are available below:

To the question on whether a real opening [towards the FSSPX] or a state of confusion prevails in Rome, Bishop Bernard Fellay states that "it may be both".

"The Pope - he explains - wishes that all the body of the Church be in peace and he thus pursues the true union of all her members. The Church desires unity with all those who are outside her. But to effect this ecumenical movement without pursuing the internal union would undermine her credibility. There is a task [needed in order] to reorder things, and this takes time. It is very hard to reintroduce discipline. There is a fear of punishing. The Pope wants discipline with order, but I ask myself if he can accomplish it"

-[La Nación] Why would he not be able to do it if he wanted to?

-"Because there are men in the Vatican Curia who do not work for the Pope, but for others."

-[La Nación] For instance?

-"[They work] For groups. One of them is the mafia looking for money in dealings with the Church. There are terrible scandals in this area. Another group, more dangerous, are the Freemasons; there are three of four lodges specific for Vatican Bishops and priests which seek to use the Church to reach the union of all peoples and religions. The current Pope is against this [the current state of affairs] and works to clean it. He has done a part of this work in silence up to now, charging small faithful groups with studying a theme, as, for instance, the motu proprio on the Latin Mass."

-[La Nación] On what other theme?

-"The recently released review of the manner of electing a Pope. This corrects a rule by John Paul II which [had been] done under the direction of the Secretariat of State."

-[La Nación] Do you foresee the future extinction of the current Mass?

-"The Latin Mass appears now [to be] an extraneous body because it was said to be forbidden for 50 years. But one will take the place of the other. This motu proprio which rehabilitates the ancient rite will generate a movement which, at first, will be slow. It will demand time, but it will grow slowly. I am certain [of this]."

-[La Nación] But if so few understand Latin...

-"It is not necessary to know Latin to take part in the Traditional Mass. What is important is that the readings and the sermon be understood by the faithful."

-[La Nación] Is the new Mass valid?

-"It can be. But this is not important. What is important is that we see in it a danger which may lead to an erroneous thought. We say that this Mass has a Protestant flavor. Benedict XVI said that he regrets the excesses in the liturgy, but while we attack it, he defends it. The definition of the Mass which was given had three errors which are heresies. But it was so grave that they changed this definition." [Rorate note: Reference to the first version (1969) of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, number 7, altered in the official text of the 1970 Roman Missal (first Editio Typica).]

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is also a de facto schism in Brazil.

Matthew said...

There is a de facto schism in the USA. The church that calls itself "Catholic" in the USA is actually completely protestant.

If you are a priest and you express belief in Catholic Doctrine or (heaven forbid) belief in the authority of the Pope, you will be marginalized forever, with no hope of ever being "rehabilitated."

This priest has been riding in the back of the bus for more than 35 years. The only advantage to being in the back of the bus is that you see what's going on up front. Most priests and bishops are heretics and corrupt. Most priests neither know nor believe Catholic Teaching.

Bishop Fellay is right and Our Holy Father knows that Bishop Fellay is right. The Church is in big trouble and very soon it will disintegrate to a more visible degree.

My bishop, a member of Opus Dei, just wrote a horrible denunciation of the Latin Mass. He has no intention whatever of approving the Latin Mass. What do you think will happen to a pastor who, invoking the Motu Proprio, will celebrate the Latin Mass?

We are witnessing a disintegration of the Church and soon the damage will be even more visible.

I am neither depressed nor discouraged. I am merely reporting what I see and hear. It's going to get worse and you will not live to see a reconstrution.

Anonymous said...

The Holy Spirit, retirement, and death are all working to remove the troublemakers, many of whom are 60's generation people. I may not live to see a full restoration, but when I look at the Catholic Hierarchy site at http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/
I am heartened by the aging of these hippies.

Anonymous said...

God bless bishop Fellay. May the Holy Father regularize the FSSPX's situation as soon as possible, so they could help him in this task.

In Brazil there is, really, a de facto schism.

John Mastai said...

Tough words; tough and clear words that are very hard to argue against. Fellay may very well be regarded as a great hero for the faith some day, providing that the good things begun are brought to completion, not thwarted.

Pascendi said...

Again, wonderful words by Bishop Fellay - put forward firmly, but lovingly and kindly. In the manner of a true apostle.

Tom S. said...

The more I hear and read Bishop Fellay, the more impressed I become with his insight and candor. God bless him.

Anonymous said...

I urge Pope Benedict xvi to create Bishop Fellay a Cardinal at the next consistory. This would automatically regularize the SSPX and all its priests and religious. Ok. It won't happen but one can dream. No?

Iosephus said...

Another group, more dangerous, are the Freemasons; there are three of four lodges specific for Vatican Bishops and priests which seek to use the Church to reach the union of all peoples and religions

What I like to call the "Malachi Martin theory" - I've never found a reason to disbelieve it and this is only further confirmation.

Anonymous said...

Do not overlook the fact that the SSPX is now granting "annulments", something that is clearly beyond their competence to do. Isn't this also is a serious offence against the law of God and the Church?

Anonymous said...

Would someone please post the relevant text from the 1969 GIRM? I have been unable to find that specific version online.

Pascendi said...

Annonymous,

The Catholic Counter Reformation (Abbe de Nantes) has much material pertaining to the 1969 GIRM.

dcs said...

While I agree with the substance of His Excellency's comments, I think that his notion that when the Pope speaks of an "internal reconciliation" that the latter is referring to the SSPX is a bit of a conceit. The Holy Father may be referring in part to the SSPX but I think, in general, he is referring to a reconciliation of the conciliar strains in the Church with the longer tradition of the Church.

dcs said...

matthew writes:
My bishop, a member of Opus Dei, just wrote a horrible denunciation of the Latin Mass.

Are there other bishops in the U.S. who are associated with Opus Dei besides Bps. DiMarzio, Finn, Gomez, and Myers?

Anonymous said...

Matthew,

Who is your bishop?

Pascendi said...

Article 7: 1969:

“The Lord's Supper or the Mass is the sacred assembly or gathering together of the people of God, under the presidency of a priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. That is why the promise of Christ: ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’ (Mt 18.20) applies in a special way to this local gathering of Holy Church.”


Article 7: 1970:

“In the Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God come together, under the presidency of a priest who represents Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic sacrifice. That is why the promise of Christ: ‘Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’ (Mt 18.20) applies in a special way to this local gathering of Holy Church.” For in the celebration of the Mass, in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very community which has gathered in His name, in the person of the minister, in His Word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.”

Anonymous said...

Yes Bishop Fellay is right...It is sad. Here in Tasmania where we have 37 Priests on the whole island...most approaching old age they continue to discourage the Old Mass. There are NO vocations. It is as if the Church is at war with itself. I pray for tradition. In the Church it is that which produces vocations and perpetuates itself that survives.

Tito said...

Pride will be the downfall of Fellay and his fellow schismatics. The motu proprio is here.

Now what?

Pride that's what.

Let them be anathema.

Ma Tucker said...

pascendi

Does the rejection of these GIRMs equate to a rejection of this council?

Anonymous said...

Matthew --

We know Finn didn't denounce the TLM. We know that Gomez and Myers gave more-or-less lukewarm acknowledgements of the MP, but certainly didn't do any denouncing. So, please, who is your bishop?

Anonymous said...

"Pride will be the downfall of Fellay and his fellow schismatics.", so says Tito.

St. Athanasius was excommunicated five times by the misguided hierarchy of his time because he stood up to the Pope and 75% of the Bishops for their heretical beliefs. Better to stand up for what's right and have misguided people like Tito condemn you than praise you.

And from dcs:

"I think that his notion that when the Pope speaks of an "internal reconciliation" that the latter is referring to the SSPX is a bit of a conceit."

Yes, conceit indeed, but not on the part of Bishop Fellay. It is he who has been face-to-face with the Pope and his lieutenants, not you; yet you are in a better position to judge the Pope's actions than Bishop Fellay?

Get real, folks.

Vox Cantor said...

It is time for the FSSPX to come back into the fold and work for continued adherence to orthodoxy from within.

Enough of this, they need to remove the pride and ocme back or they will become irrelevant--like the "Old Catholic" churches.

dcs said...

It is he who has been face-to-face with the Pope and his lieutenants, not you; yet you are in a better position to judge the Pope's actions than Bishop Fellay?

No, I am not in a better position to judge the actions of the Holy Father. However, I do believe that the interpretation that I have given Summorum Pontificum is more in harmony with the thinking of the Pope than is Bp. Fellay's interpretation. One doesn't have to be close to the Pope or have a face-to-face meeting with him in order to see that; one need only read what His Holiness has written on the subject of the old Mass, before and after his election.

The fact that Bp. Fellay is in a better position to judge the Pope's actions doesn't necessarily imply that His Excellency's judgments will be correct.

Anonymous said...

This is Bishop DiMarzio's letter. Is this the one referrenced?:
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Pope Benedict XVI issued an apostolic letter on July 7 on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reform of 1970. This commonly has been known as the permission to celebrate the Mass in Latin as it was celebrated since the Council of Trent. The current Latin Missal was approved in 1962 and is the Missal to be used when Mass is celebrated in Latin. It is also possible to celebrate the Mass of the Second Vatican Council in Latin, but its form is the same as the Mass we now know in the vernacular.

Certain confusion has been caused by reports on the letter, issued “motu proprio” (on the Holy Father’s own initiative). The instruction states clearly that the ordinary form of the Latin Rite is the use of the Missal approved by the Second Vatican Council and that the extraordinary celebration of Mass in the Latin Rite is the use of the Missal of 1962. The Holy Father in his instruction makes it clear that those who wish to use the prior Missal must not in any way reject the authority of the Second Vatican Council to replace that Missal with the Missal presently in use. Unfortunately, this is what is held by many so-called traditionalist Catholics led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, now deceased. His followers continue to maintain that the Second Vatican Council had no authority to change the traditional Latin Mass.
The Holy Father in his instruction uses two Latin phrases that characterized the life of the Church for many centuries, “lex credendi” and “lex orandi.” Simply stated, this means that the laws of worship follow the laws of belief. It is hoped that the ability for greater use of the prior Missal to celebrate Mass in Latin will express a common belief, although the language of prayer may be different. This certainly is a concern to many, in particular in parishes where some feel confusion can result over the use of the two Missals.

However, it has been our experience since the Second Vatican Council that those who prefer the use of the prior Missal in the celebration of Mass are certainly fewer than those who prefer the new Missal. In many ways it is a matter of preference, because the liturgy is meant to enhance and support our belief and give us the way of expressing that belief in prayer.
The use of the vernacular in the liturgy has been a great asset in proclaiming Sacred Scripture as well as in intensifying the understanding believers have of the liturgy in which they participate. Some people still question the use of multiple languages in one country for the celebration of liturgy. The Diocese of Brooklyn often receives requests that Mass only be celebrated in English, however, in a Diocese where Mass is celebrated in 26 different languages each Sunday, this is hardly possible or advisable.
Language is an expression of one’s culture and manner of thinking. People usually pray in the language they first learned, the language in which prayer was taught to them. This certainly is the case with many immigrants whose first language is other than English. For them to adapt to another language of prayer in their liturgical life would be a great burden and in many ways would diminish their participation in liturgy. In some ways this is applicable to those who prefer Mass in Latin, prior to 1968 when the Mass was almost only in Latin.

We all have our fond memories of the liturgy that nourished us and brought us to new insights of the Second Vatican Council. I myself am trained to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, but I never had the opportunity to do so since when I was ordained in 1970 the popular use of that Missal was not encouraged. All the priests who celebrated Mass in Latin for many years have their own memories, some fond and others not so admirable, since the Mass was difficult to celebrate. Since the rubrics (the instructions) of how the Mass was to be celebrated were detailed and sometimes difficult to follow, distractions were also numerous. Although many could pronounce Latin, the meaning of certain texts was not always understood.

The Church in its wisdom allows many different forms of worship within the one Catholic Church. For example, we have many different rites in which Mass is celebrated in a completely different way than the Roman Rite, with the use of different languages. Now within the Roman Rite there are two ways of celebrating that rite, the ordinary with the Missal of the Second Vatican Council and the extraordinary using the Missal of 1962.
There are certain advantages and disadvantages to each method of celebration. The major advantage of the newer rite is that much more of Sacred Scripture from the Old and New Testaments is used over the three-year cycle of readings. In the older liturgy, only small portions of Scripture were liturgically proclaimed. On the other hand, Mass in Latin from the prior Missal did have a certain reverence and attention to the mystery of the Eucharist that was celebrated. Certainly, the music of the Latin chants was also an essential experience which added to the solemnity of the liturgy. Periods of silence also added to a prayerful atmosphere. Of course, all these elements of the older celebration can be included in the newer. Perhaps these fewer than 40 years have not given us sufficient time to recoup the advantages of the past and place them into the present.

The Church is a living organism open to change and renewal. Sometimes renewal must look at the past in order to reach the present. The celebration of the Mass in Latin with the 1962 Missal may give us some understanding of how we must continue to improve our attention to the liturgy, for, in fact, it is the sum and source of our life as Catholic Christians, and anything we can do to make our celebrations more faith filled and more reverent must be used.
Diocesan norms based on the Holy Father’s instruction will be forthcoming and will give some understanding of how we can implement the instruction in our Diocese. Several weeks ago, The Tablet announced that the Latin Mass is regularly celebrated at two locations, each Sunday at 10 a.m. in Our Lady of Peace Church in Park Slope, and on the second and fourth Sundays of the month at 9 a.m. in St. John’s Cemetery Chapel in Middle Village. I hope these opportunities will be sufficient for the faithful to fulfill the desire to experience the Latin Mass, but if they are not we will take into consideration other requests that may come from parishes. There are always the difficulties of scheduling and having priests appropriately trained in language and liturgy to celebrate Mass in Latin.
Any new innovation certainly is an exercise of “putting out into the deep.” Certainly, the Holy Father’s instruction, which is meant to foster an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church, will give the Church an opportunity, as he said, “to generously open our hearts and make room for everything that faith itself allows.”

Join me in praying for good celebrations of the Eucharist in our Diocese, where the proclamation of the Word and homily are clear and where the celebration of the Eucharistic rite is reverent and according to liturgical norms. Good celebrations foster faith, while poor celebrations can destroy faith. My hope is that the celebration of the Eucharist in whatever form in our Diocese will inspire us to deeper faith and concrete action.
End

Tito said...

Anon,

St. Athanasius was standing up to bishops that were in heresy that hijacked their episcopates through murder, calumny, and outright lies.

None of which can be said for the bishops of today. Granted some (or many) bishops are not as orthodox as others, but at least they were legit from the Pope himself.

That can't be said about Bishop Fellay. WHICH can be said of St. Athanasius.

Vox Cantor,

I couldn't agree more.

In Christ,

Tito

Anonymous said...

Bishop DiMarzio's letter tells us of the two ways of celebrating the Roman rite, mentioning the ordinary as being the Missal of the Second Vatican Council. As that Council decreed that Latin be maintained in the Mass, with the faithful to be taught how to sing and pray in Latin, what ever happened to being obedient to the decrees of the Council?

Michael said...

Tito,

"Some are not as orthodox as others"?

You either are or you are not. A Bishop either confesses all of the Catholic Faith or he does not.

Regardless of how a Bishop obtains and retains control of his diocese, they are equally culpable and not worthy of our obedience who would teach contrary to the Faith.

Mike

Tito said...

Michael,

I agree.

Though you are missing the point of the discussion.

GOd bless,

Tito

Br. Anthony said...

Vox Cantor said:

"It is time for the FSSPX to come back into the fold and work for continued adherence to orthodoxy from within."

The FSSP have been operating from "within" for the last 20 years and what have they accomplished other than being nicely integrated into the Novus Ordo establishment.

And unlike the schismatic Old Catholics, the SSPX accept all the dogmas of the Church and acknowledge the authority of the pope.

Anonymous said...

Br. Anthony:

SSPX does not accept the authority of the Pope if they are indeed granting their own annulments. This seems to be a serious offense.

A.

Br. Anthony said...

Anonymous.

The fact that the SSPX grants annulments does not mean they refuse the authority of the pope. The Novus Ordo annulment process has gone mad. There is a serious need for this process.

See the SSPX's defence here:

SSPX and Annulments

Anonymous said...

An annulment is not "granted." An annulment is DECLARED. By a process of reasoning, a marriage contract is analyzed and if a necessary element is missing, then that attempted marriage is DECLARED invalid.
Now, someone tell me that the so-called Catholic Church in the USA is not granting DIVORCE.
Even that great Rock Star of unhappy memory, John Paul II said of the American rate of "annulment" declarations: "Isn't that the same as divorce?"
Do not worry about the SSPX. They are competent to make prudent and accurate evaluations of marriage. They are also CATHOLIC.
An "annulment" means that the marriage never existed and was null (invalid) from the start.

dcs said...

One could make the argument that SSPX annulments were necessary if annulments themselves were necessary for salvation (like the Sacraments are necessary for salvation). However, annulments are not necessary for salvation so it's hard to see how "supplied jurisdiction" could possibly apply.

I fail to see how examining marriage cases and declaring annulments helps solve the annulment crisis. There are too many annulments, we're told. So why have more of them?

Do not worry about the SSPX. They are competent to make prudent and accurate evaluations of marriage.

They are not competent because they have no jurisdiction.

Matthew said...

You do not need jurisdiction to come to a conclusion. You need jurisdiction to legalize that decision.
There is reasonable doubt as to whether or not Archbishop Lebebvfre committed a mortal sin when he consecrated the four bishops. To incur the canonical censure of excommunication, there has to be a mortal sin.
Secondly, very many people consider the past 35 to 40 years till present to be a time of real persecution. Cardinal Hoyas has already stated that you can fulfill your Sunday Mass obligation at a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest providing that you do not do so with a "schismatic attitude." (That's Vatican2 "speak.")
I am not a member of the SSPX. I am a priest with faculties of my diocese since the day I was ordained. During Holy Week I attend the Sacred Triduum at an SSPX Chapel, and I receive Communion.
So sue me and arrest me.

dcs said...

You do not need jurisdiction to come to a conclusion. You need jurisdiction to legalize that decision.

Right, and until the decision is legalized, the marriage enjoys the favor of the law.

Laypeople can come to conclusions about the validity of their marriages, too, but it does not follow that they can issue themselves decrees of nullity.

Pascendi said...

The Church has always and everywhere taught that a marriage is valid until proven to the contrary and declared so by the competent authority.

It is true that many, many annulments are highly dubious. For example, the archdiocese of Toronto obviously has such a demand for annullments that it even has pdf files for applicants to download etc.

Nonetheless, to avoid such abuse, the SSPX would best review a marriage following traditional and prudent guidelines, and then send the couple to the local authority.

No religious order - religious or secular ever had jurisdiction over marriage. Likewise the SSPX cannot claim jurisdiction for it would not even have such jurisdiction if the Society was canonically regularized. Marriage validity pertains to the Holy See and the local bishop.

It truly is a mess, and the sanctity and marriage suffers greatly by Catholics who de facto believe in divorce.

Syriacus said...

Meanwhile, in Germany , SCHOCKING declarations by the Vice-President of the German Episcopal Conference, Bishop Mussinghoff of Aachen (Aquisgrana):

“The German Bishops meeting in September, will decide for common regulations for the celebration of the old Mass.” (Practically, to extend to all Germany shared ‘guidelines’for the MP’s implementation -similar to those issued by Bishop Mixa in Augsburg.)

Bishop Mussinghoff added that priests in his diocese won’t be allowed to simply answer “yes” to the requests of the faithful (cause they “are too few” for the ordinary parish life). (There are also “too few” 1962 Missals around in his diocese, etc…)

Plus: the question of the old lectionary must be discussed in Rome, cause, “it contains too less Old Testament”. Also the problems with the old Good Friday would be too many…

– - –
Die katholischen Bischöfe wollen im September einheitliche Grundsätze zur Feier der alten Messe vereinbaren.

Das kündigte der Aachener Bischof Heinrich Mussinghoff jetzt an. Der stellvertretende Vorsitzende der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz sagte: „Wir werden Regelungen finden, die alle Bischöfe akzeptieren. Da besteht eine große Einheit.“ Die Messe solle nur von Priestern gelesen werden, „die voll und ganz hinter dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil stehen“. Einen Rechtsanspruch auf die tridentinische Messe könnten Gläubige aber im Bistum Aachen nicht gegenüber ihrem Pfarrer erheben, sagte Mussinghoff. Das gehe schon aus praktischen Gründen nicht. Wenn ein Pfarrer für sechs Gemeinden zuständig sei und in einer Kirche nur jeden zweiten Sonntag Eucharistie feiern könne, müsse das eine Messe für alle sein.
> Die Ortsbischöfe hatten Anfang der Woche beim Ständigen Rat ein erstes Gespräch über die Umsetzung des Papst-Erlasses geführt, wie Mussinghoff sagte. Bei ihrem Herbsttreffen vom 24. bis 27. September in Fulda wollen sie die Beratungen fortsetzen. Zu regeln ist nach den Worten des Bischofs etwa die Leseordnung der alten Messe. Sie enthalte bedauerlicherweise weniger Texte aus dem Alten Testament als die neue. „Das wäre ein Verlust, über den man mit Rom reden muss.“ Festzulegen ist nach Angaben des Vize-Vorsitzenden auch, wie die alten Riten künftig in die Priester-Ausbildung einbezogen werden. „Man muss dabei sehen, wie viele Priester den Ritus denn mögen und auch Latein können.“ In den meisten Gemeinden fehlten zudem Messbücher von 1962. Geklärt werden müsse auch die Frage nach der alten Karfreitagsbitte für eine Juden-Bekehrung, die von jüdischer Seite scharf kritisiert worden war. Nach der begrenzten Wiederzulassung der alten lateinischen Messe durch Papst Benedikt XVI. hat bislang nur das Bistum Augsburg Durchführungsbestimmungen herausgegeben. (kna)

See also: http://kirchensite.de/index.php?mySID=f7568aaadc72a09db78f70f3724c7fbd&myELEMENT=137440

——If you just have a look at the last part (wide Roman connections, power in German Church, intense ecumenical relations, also with Jews: a consommè of the mainstream state-of-the-art episcopal power-block) of Mussinghoff’s curriculum, you will be even more frightened…

[...]
15.05.1995

berufen als Mitglied des Obersten Gerichtshofes der Apostolischen Signatur in Rom
23.07.2000 und 04.07.2006 erneut als Mitglied des Obersten Gerichtshofes der Apostolischen Signatur in Rom berufen
07.03.1995 Wahl zum Mitglied der Kommission VIII der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz für Fragen der Wissenschaft und Kultur
24.09.1996 Wahl zum Vorsitzenden der Kommission VIII
25.09.2001 und 26.09.2006 erneute Wahl zum Vorsitzenden der Kommission VIII
24.09.1996-26.09.2001

Mitglied der Glaubenskommission (K I) der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz
seit März 1999 Mitglied der römischen Kleruskongregation
21.09.1999

Wahl zum stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz
20.09.2005 erneute Wahl zum Stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz
25.9.2001-26.09.2006

Mitglied der Kommission X der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz für Weltkirchliche Aufgaben
26.09.2006

Wahl zum Mitglied der Ökumenekommission (K II) der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz
26.09.2006

Wahl zum Vorsitzenden der am 26.09.2006 errichteten Unterkommission der K II “für die religiösen Beziehungen zum Judentum”

http://www.kirche-im-bistum-aachen.de/kiba/dcms/traeger/4/bistum-ac/bischof/tablebenslauf.html

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Is it a time of episcopal war against Summorum Pontificum approaching (e.g.) in Germany
(...after the apparent initial “peaceful acceptance” ) ??

New Catholic said...

Syriacus: would you be kind enough to contact us by mail? Thank you.

alsaticus said...

Syriacus wrote :
"is it a time of episcopal war against Summorum Pontificum approaching (e.g.) in Germany
(...after the apparent initial “peaceful acceptance” ) ??"

The answer is obviously YES !
Because :
- there was never any "peaceful acceptance" from GermChurch, one of the most doctrinally corrupted Church in Europe
- GermChurch has fiercely opposed the very idea of Summorum Pontificum, as much as FrenchChurch and onto the last minute before July 7, 2007
- Cardinal Lehmann, the n°1 of GermChurch, is a well-known dissenter on numerous points of Catholic doctrine and one major opponent to then cardinal Ratzinger
- the former bp of Hamburg lead a frontal opposition to John Paul II's ethical instructions until he finally resigned after years and years ; this overtly "shismatic" bishop was support by GermChurch during a long time
- in 2003, John Paul II gave a personal letter to His Eminence Karl cardinal Lehmann saying GermChurch was so corrupted the bishops would kill the faith in Germany !
- in 1993, GermChurch already sabotaged John Paul II Ecclesia Dei by their own rules, with a great success.

We will see if PCED is responding to this open war or staying passive at it was before the new motu proprio.
Worse, the new restrictive rules - a true prohibition in desguise - will very likely inspire other episcopal conferences.
Already the cardinal-abp of Bogota has rejected the Good Shepherd Institute in his diocese : may I remind everybody the cardinal-president of PCED is himself a Colombian so it speaks volume on his real influence ...

Syriacus said...

Dear Alsaticus, just a minor correction (of a typo) :

-You wrote : « the former bp of Hamburg lead a frontal opposition to John Paul II's ethical instructions until he finally resigned after years and years ; this overtly "shismatic" bishop was support by GermChurch during a long time »

I'm sure You were referring not to the former Archbishop of Hamburg (Ludwig Averkamp, however not a conservative) , but to the well-known, alas, former bishop of Limburg, Franz Kamphaus (the one -inter alia- of the Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung-saga...)

[By the way: it may be interesting to note, that the Limburg see is still vacant, from February.]

Syriacus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Syriacus said...

Germany: yet another complaint from the Jews (often belonging to some association with "dialoguing Christians" ) about the MP ... :



"It cannot be affirmed that Summorum Pontificum didn't change anything, theologically..."


"...The traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews contains anti-judaic formulations, therefore it should be explicitly excluded from all Masses in Parishes."




« Europa

Deutschland

Die Gesellschaften für Christlich-Jüdische Zusammenarbeit in Deutschland sind besorgt über den Erlass des Papstes zur lateinischen Messe.

Das im Juli veröffentlichte Motu Proprio „Summorum Pontificum“ könne den christlich-jüdischen Dialog erheblich stören, erklärte der in Bad Nauheim ansässige Koordinierungsrat in einem heute veröffentlichten Brief an Papst Benedikt XVI. Es könne nicht behauptet werden, dass sich durch das Schreiben theologisch nichts verändert habe. Der Koordinierungsrat verlangt insbesondere Klarstellungen zur traditionellen Karfreitagsfürbitte bezüglich der Juden. Sie enthalte judenfeindliche Formulierungen und müsse deshalb ausdrücklich für alle Messen und Pfarreien ausgeschlossen werden. (kna) »

Observer said...

The SSPX always had the right---in certain respects the duty---to resist ill-advised changes. If Hans Kung can write (albeit having had his license in theology pulled), the SSPX with far more noble motives had and has every right to resist hurtful theology. The problems came only with the consecrations. But it is a new day and I believe Benedict is seeking a "new" remnant to take on neo-modernism and hopes for reconciliation; but the SSPX would do well to make some gesture.

Anonymous said...

How can Bp Felley reconcile 23 years of rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass, priestly ordinations and Bishop consecrations with Holy Tradition and traditional consecrations? Hasn't it been true that the SSPX rejected the new Mass and consecrations up to recent times? Now it appears that the SSPX accepts the New Mass and consecrations. Why has it been so important for the last 23 years to uphold tradition when the New Mass is so valid?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Hasn't it been true that the SSPX rejected the new Mass and consecrations up to recent times?



The answer to that is no. After study, Archbishop Lefebvre came to the conlusion that episcopal consecrations in the new rite are valid. They have to be; otherwise, the episcopal consecrations of the Byzantine rites are invalid, as they suffer from the same "defect" people like Father Cekada claim for the new rites.

In the early years of the SSPX, the archbishop allowed his seminarians to attend the new Mass. This is a fact that is documented by the SSPX itself.

God bless Bishop Fellay.