Rorate Caeli

Fellay speaks about the Motu Proprio - and more...

Full translation of an interview granted by the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, to the great French daily Présent:

-Where is the Motu proprio since September 14?

The feedback that I’ve had until now has been quite negative with some bishops clearly seeking to limit its application. There is a certain irony here in so far as they act as though the Motu proprio created a mess because it is no longer necessary to ask them for permission to celebrate the sacraments according to the traditional rite. There is an objective contrast to the magnanimity which the Pope intended.

-Nevertheless, is this Motu proprio in your opinion a positive thing?

Indeed it is. The cause of our joy lies in the assertion that the Mass of St. Pius V has never been abrogated. That includes a multitude of implications beginning with the fact that, since it continued to exist, it has always been the law of the Church. Hence, the conciliar reform has not been able to replace the old Mass, though in a sense it was banned.

-Does this mean that the crisis is over?

Certainly not! It now becomes our mission to help reintroduce this rite. Many priests are asking us to teach them how to celebrate it and their stories can be summed up by the words of a Roman prelate: "The priest can not find his identity in the new Mass." Of course this will take plenty of time.

-Is it not a paradox to say in a tone of loving support for the Pope, that the Motu proprio is an undeniable step forward and that you expect much more to follow, and then say at the same time that it will take a long time - perhaps several generations?

No! Because every coin has two sides. On the one hand, the opportunity for immediate practical solutions. On the other hand, peace within the Church by resolution of the crisis at its roots - which is doctrinal. The present situation is very diverse. For this to be accomplished, both sides must be considered.

-But according to the interlocutor, you seem to present rather one aspect or another…

This is to see where the interlocutor is - to reach him. When it comes to our faithful, I try to give the proper line, to correct errors. My concern is to give them, and keep them in the Catholic spirit. That is to say, an unwavering commitment to faith, and on another level, an attachment to the Church.

-But you said in front of some journalists to expect “much more” leeway given by the Pope from the Motu proprio.

What I mean by this is that I see the possibility, relatively forthcoming, of finding practical solutions. But, when I say to the faithful that it will probably take several generations, I am referring to the peace that is to be restored in the Church through the settlement of the doctrinal crisis. If we want to combine the two issues - both sides of the coin - it means that practical solutions will arrive well before the end of the crisis.

But even on this first point, it will be important that the necessary conditions are met. There is of course the Mass, as we have just found in the Motu proprio. Also he withdrawal of the decree of excommunication, which does not seem to pose a problem. But above all, we must cease being made to swallow poison with regard to the faith and dogma. That is always the first - the main condition.
Transcript: Le Forum Catholique; Translation: Mornac

11 comments:

schoolman said...

"...practical solutions will arrive well before the end of the crisis...

...But above all, we must cease being made to swallow poison with regard to the faith and dogma. That is always the first - the main condition."
-------------------------

The first comment seems rather positive and encouraging. But what follows seems rather vague. Are the faithful, including all of the traditional communities attached to the Holy See, "being made to swallow poison with regard to the faith and dogma"? What are the so-called "errors" in faith and dogma that FSSP, ICK, IBP, Campos, etc. have swollowed? Are we all followers of error and heresy according to Bishop Fellay?

Anonymous said...

I heard there is a document coming out in December from the CDF about some issues that might have something to do with resolving some aspects of what Bp. Fellay is referring to as "the doctrinal crisis". Anyone more information on this?

Clemens Maria said...

Bishop Rifan concelebrated a NO Mass in 2005 at which there was some scandalous liturgical dancing. He defended himself by saying that it was necessary for him to show solidarity (my word not his) with his brother bishops in Brazil (the Mass was concelebrated by a number of bishops).

The FSSP was forced in 1999-2000 to replace the superior general and modify its rule to accommodate 9 FSSP priests who wished to celebrate the NO Mass.

The FSSP cannot open an apostolate in the Archdiocese of Boston even though the Latin Mass community requested it directly to Cardinal O'Malley and the FSSP expressed interest in doing so.

The ICK was also turned away from Boston.

The SSPX does have an apostolate in Boston.

If the FSSP, ICK, etc want to open an apostolate in Boston they will have to celebrate the NO Mass.

I don't know if these are the types of "poison" that Bishop Fellay is talking about but clearly this IS "poison".

If the SSPX becomes just another FSSP, there will be noone to standup to the liberal bullies in Boston and elsewhere.

Jim said...

I agree with Schoolman and would extend his rhetorical question to a growing number Novus Ordo parishes where Catholic doctrine is alive and well. The Mass in these and other NO parishes is in need of reform -- for that matter, so is in particular the dreary Latin Low Mass. But Bishop Fellay continues the SSPX habit of sweeping, unqualified generalities in a time where we need charity to temper the dialogue by observing the overall integrity of the true Church.

Anonymous said...

Clemens Maria wrote:

"If the SSPX becomes just another FSSP, there will be noone to standup to the liberal bullies in Boston and elsewhere."

I am certain the writer intends the logic to lead to this conclusion and with the best of intentions -- however, this is also the mantra of the SSPX, for years, that while true to a certain extent is not true to the extent of the One True Church. In fact, to continue to hold such a position endangers the SSPX phenomenon becoming more than idealogically set apart from Rome -- that is filled with danger. Just watch the Pope, see what he does, read what he says -- keep one's eye on the prize. God has much more than the SSPX to battle and defeat the liberal bullies.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX continually fails to grasp the fundamental concept that "the ends do not justify the means." Regardless of how bad things are in the Church, and regardless of how strongly the SSPX wishes to restore the Church, their persistence in an irregular situation is wrongful and scandalous, and thus cannot be justified as a legitimate means of achieving the ends they seek.

schoolman said...

"...regardless of how strongly the SSPX wishes to restore the Church, their persistence in an irregular situation is wrongful and scandalous, and thus cannot be justified as a legitimate means of achieving the ends they seek."
-----------------

Anonymous, I think Bishop Fellay would agree with that. But his argument seems to rest on a different foundation. For Bishop Fellay, regularization will directly lead to the SSPX being "forced to swallow poison regarding faith and dogma..." Therefore, he would argue that the SSPX has a "right" to maintain their currect status relative to Rome insofar as this helps them to preserve the "tradition" of the faith and avoid errors in dogma, etc. Such an argument would seem respectable if it did not violate the dogma of indefectibility.

Anonymous said...

Schoolman is silly. What corner of the catholic church has he been living in that would incline him to characterize the SSPX as "scandalous" when catholics have been feed a steady diet of bilge for decades now from the hands of truly harmful modernist clergy. As critical as the grace-giving Tridintine Mass restoration is,the fact is obvious that doctrinal clarity needs to be restored. The FSSP/ICK/IBP/Campos etc does not/will not/may not discuss the elephant in the room and continue to skirt the issues. The SSPX has not chosen a luke-warm approach. The Church owes them a profound debt of gratitude but this will go unexpressed for decades, perhaps centuries.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, how in the name of creation can "Jim" characterize the Tridintine Low Mass, the renewal of Calvary, as "dreary". This betrays what I suspect is part of a faulty mindset characteristic of "neocon" catholics who insist on a "meaningful" liturgical show onto which they can graft all sorts of "Hahn-ish" nonsense

Jim said...

anonymous said: "... how in the name of creation can "Jim" characterize the Tridintine Low Mass, the renewal of Calvary, as "dreary". Quite simple, but first the distinction must be observed that the renewal of Calvary is not dreary, of course!, but one can comment on liturgical practice over the years, as, in 1965, Archbishop Lefebvre did in A Bishop Speaks, when he called for the priest facing the people and reading in the vernacular up to the Offeratory which would be said in Latin and facing the altar, basically the Mass said at Econe in the early years. The Low Mass is a monastic invention to be said privately early in the morning with no congregation so that the priests in the community making way for the priest who will celebrate the conventual Mass later in the morning.

PAX
Jimbo

schoolman said...

"Schoolman is silly."
--------------

That does not explain how the traditional communities have been forced to swallow errors in faith and dogma. Which so-called "errors" in faith and dogma have these communities swallowed?