Rorate Caeli

Fellay: let's wait

From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, to the March-April newsletter of Una Voce France (source: DICI):

May we know if the doctrinal discussions that are held by some of your representatives with Roman authorities are satisfactory? 
[Fellay:] What do we understand by satisfactory? This seems too subjective. Do these discussions correspond to our expectations or to those of the Roman authorities? Considering the divergences with which they were considered, it seems premature for me to give an answer, considering that they are not yet over. [Rorate note: the interview was granted in late Feb., early Mar.] I believe that there are elements that disappoint us, and, at the same time, others that give us a certain hope for the future. I do not believe that I can clearly answer your question with a yes or with a no. It seems to me that one cannot expect immediate fruits from such discussions, but there is a change of thinking, of a thinking that is yet to mature. We do have hope that these contacts will contribute to certain corrections, but I do not believe that this will happen in the near future.

32 comments:

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

The recent acts of the Holy Father are evidence that these talks have had no impact, at least for the moment.

Crouchback said...

Lets wait and see.

I predict that the SSPX will be able to move forward "more freely" than at present.

I don't know how this will be, Personal Prelature type structure or something like that, only more secure from interfering by Bishops of bad faith.

But I think the situation will be better quite soon.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"We do have hope that these contacts will contribute to certain corrections, but I do not believe that this will happen in the near future."

In the immediate meantime, Holy Father, please grant or acknowledge some provision of faculties to the Society so that they may carry out the Gospel message of absolving sins.
Thousands of souls depend upon your mercy in this matter.
Thank you and God bless.

Scrooge said...

Bishop Fellay just contradicted Anthony's over-all "negatron" posts in this blog. It is clear that according to Bp. Fellay's latest pronouncement that the recent talks have made "some kind" of an "impact" on the Roman authorities' perspective regarding the crisis in the Church [for ex: the number of documents and articles recently produced that insist on a re-reading of Vatican II in light of Tradition (Msgr Pozzo on Aspects of the Ecclesiology of Vatican II, Bishop Schneider's call for a new Syllabus, etcetera)]. Yes, they do not fully restore Tradition to its rightful place and honor in the Church, but they do contribute to the promotion of Tradition precisely by retarding the full spread of modernism and liberalism which according to Bp. Fellay, "...give us a certain hope for the future."

Paul Haley said...

There are many traditional priests, including but not limited to the SSPX, that have "no canonical jurisdiction" and this cries out to heaven for Justice. Please, Your Holiness, hear the pleas of your subjects and grant this jurisdiction without any further delay. A worldwide apostolic administration with their own bishops would do the trick and what is to prevent such an arrangement?

Cruise the Groove. said...

"...and what is to prevent such an arrangement?

Mr Haley,
Nothing, for the Holy Father.

John McFarland said...

I would suggest that the optimists among the commenters here take a look, in the issues of the SSPX's Angelus magazine for the last year or so, at the various SSPX analyses of the Pope's various words and actions.

They show beyond doubt that in the SSPX's considered judgment, the Pope remains a progressivist, and his teaching remains at odds with traditional Catholic doctrine.

As long as that remains the case,
(1) there cannot be any rapprochment between the Vatican and the SSPX, and (2) it is hard to credit that the Holy Father will do anything to give aid and comfort to the SSPX's professed mission, which can fairly be described as a mission to protect the Church from, among other things, the teachings of men like the Holy Father.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

The most controversial points of Vatican II, read in the light of Tradition, would require a rejection of those points as erroneous at best or heretical at worst.

Anonymous said...

Fellay said, "...I do not believe that this will happen in the near future."

Of course not. We can't anything to happen "in the near future." Can't even get a clarification on Summorum Pontificum approaching four years now. Disappointing but not surprising the SSPX is left to swing in the wind.

Matt

LeonG said...

Yes Mr MacFarland and your commentators are correct too. FRankly, the discussions are really going nowhere but they keep the SSPX engaged and reduce its missionary energies.

Cruise the Groove. said...

And so are we to take from the words of the last two gentlemen that the Holy Father does not care for the souls of those who recieve FSSPX absolutions, since they are not valid unless dying or completely ignorant?
And most are not ignorant that the Society does not have jurisdiction.

Is the eternal salvation of thousands of Catholic souls irrelevant to the Vicar of Christ?

I for one do not think the HF is so uncaring and he will do something soon to remedy this dire situation.

Anonymous said...

"...his teaching remains at odds with traditional Catholic doctrine."

What teaching?

Jean

Anonymous said...

"Can't even get a clarification on Summorum Pontificum approaching four years now."

Nobody can prevent the offering of the Traditional Roman Liturgy.

Clarified.

That was easy.

mundabor said...

Agree with Matt 19:18,

if it takes almost four years to write the instruction for summorum pontificum, decisive action is not to be expected during this pontificate.

Still, the upcoming beatification reminds us that we have gone through worse times.

Mundabor

John McFarland said...

Dear Cruise,

I think that the salvation of souls is not of primary concern to the Holy Father, because he doesn't think that there any very many people who don't achieve salvation.

Consider in this connection pars. 45 and 46 of his encylical on hope, Spe Salvi.

If the Holy Father were concerned, wouldn't he have done something by now?

Cruise the Groove. said...

"I think that the salvation of souls is not of primary concern to the Holy Father, because he doesn't think that there any very many people who don't achieve salvation."
Mr McFarland,
Do you think that Pope Benedict thinks that if a person who commits adultery and knowing full well that the SSPX do not have faculties to absolve sins, goes to confession to them without perfect contrition, if that person dies right after that confession, will be saved?

Scrooge said...

Hey LeonG, McFarland, Anthony, and to all the "negatron factionalists" in the Society, then why don't you just tell Bishop Fellay to stop all these "non-sensical futile" discussions with Rome? Awwww.... (rolls eyes)

@Anthony: "The most controversial points of Vatican II, read in the light of Tradition, would require a rejection of those points as erroneous at best or heretical at worst."

That is not the point I was raising. Did you really read my previous post? The point is a REAL discussion with REAL effects (no matter how small) is taking place.

Gratias said...

I pray the SSPX does see the light right away. There has never be a better moment for unifying Catholic Tradition than with Benedict XVI. Join us now. The 500 truly missionary SSPX priests can really make huge a difference to the Church. Playing hard-to-get will only prolong the agony of the Church.

Scrooge said...

"I think that the salvation of souls is not of primary concern to the Holy Father, because he doesn't think that there any very many people who don't achieve salvation.

Consider in this connection pars. 45 and 46 of his encylical on hope, Spe Salvi."

Nothing in that Encyclical proves your accusation against the Holy Father! When people are imprisoned in ideological blinders, they see what they want to see. If you cannot respect this current Pope, at least do not twist and mangle his pronouncements to make him appear what he is not!

Scrooge said...

And you all negatron robots can tell Bishop Fellay to stop "Waiting" in vain...

Anonymous said...

As a life-long student of St. Thomas and one who only assists at the TLM, I find it humorous that the Rev. Br. Anthony can profer these "ipse dixit" condemnations of Vat. II, Pope Benedict, and the modern "Vatican" Church - not very traditional, to say the least. Of course, the spirit and "letter" of Tertullian has been with the Church forever, i.e., "I/we know better than the (now perverted) Church in Rome". I appreciate HE Fellay's words "let's wait", even though I personally would never wait to run to Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is neither holiness nor salvation, as the Tradition tells us.

Brian said...

I personally would never wait to run to Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is neither holiness nor salvation, as the Tradition tells us.

Your statement implies that the SSPX is outside of Holy Mother Church and is without holiness and salvation.

As a "life-long student of St. Thomas" and strong critic of Br. Anthony, I trust that you would not "profer these 'ipse dixit' condemnations" of the SSPX without good reason.

Please provide your reasoned argument for that implied, damning accusation.

Paul Haley said...

Whether or not you believe the Pope will act to create jurisdiction for the TLM and the priests who celebrate it, the fact remains that we have both the right and the duty under canon law to make our requests known to the Holy See. To imply that the current holy father will not act ever is to give credence to the arguments of the sedevacantists and that is something I simply will not do. It also presupposes that prayers offered for such an intention will have no effect and that is even more problematical.

Sadie Vacantist said...

The secular political situation would have to change radically in order to accomodate the demands of the SSPX. Only the breakdown of the post-WWII consensus would be the necessary catalyst for the change in mindset. Go on to a Catholic blog and question the post-War 'settlements' and see the response. The cult of WWII is so strong (even among Catholics) that the Vatican simply can not deliver what Fellay wants. As long as this cult continues, the SSPX will get nowhere. It is delusional of Fellay to pretend otherwise.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Scrooge,

Read what I said. I was referring to the Holy Father himself.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

"As a life-long student of St. Thomas and one who only assists at the TLM,...."

And you still adhere to Vatican II??? What good was your philosphical/theological learning?

Do you think that there are not those who were students of St. Thomas and yet reject many of the propositions of Vatican II?

LeonG said...

Scrooge is a name that is apt. Little doth he know about Confraternity matters.

Mar said...

Anon 06:33 said...Of course, the spirit and "letter" of Tertullian has been with the Church forever, i.e., "I/we know better than the (now perverted) Church in Rome".

And yet Rome still acknowledges Tertullian as a Father of the Church and much of his writing is considered absolutely sound. Why is that do you think? Could it be that there is a line of distinction somewhere and that the one size fits all approach is shallow and worthless?

And what are your thoughts on St. Athanasius? Did he have the spirit of Tertullian? And St. Catherine of Siena? Did she have it too?

See, you can do an “ipse dixit” - as you call it - using as a point of reference your own subjective synthesis of theological, philosophical, moral and other data that you consider plausible. I think that your statements actually have a tinge of this approach, but that's just my view.

Or you can use as your point of reference the perennial teachings of the Church with all their clarity and stability. Now that is the true rock upon which to build your house. There is a big difference between the first approach and the second.

Consider St. Paul's words in Galatians 1:8-10 . But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

St. Paul is clearly acknowledging that he could go astray and that the faithful should be aware of that and not go astray with him.

Now, I ask you, which of these is the greatest in the Church - the present Holy Father, the late Holy Father, the one before, and the one before that; or St. Paul?

So if the faithful are urged to stand firm against the preaching even of St. Paul if he were at some point to stray from his original preaching - which is part of the deposit of faith once and for all - doesn't that indicate that the faithful should also stand firm when present-day Pontiffs stray from the path, no matter whether by commission or omission?

No number of Vatican IIs or other Councils can override what St. Paul has said because he is the true mouthpiece for Jesus Christ, chosen by Our Lord Himself - peronally.

Scrooge said...

LeonG,

I know a lot about Confraternity matters. A lot more than you do. And I have loved Scrooge ever since the SSPX priory where I attend for the TLM staged the play "A Christmas Carol" many, many years ago. You seem to be ignorant of what the character of Scrooge signifies. You cannot mask your depravity and shallowness by writing your sentences in archaic English.

@Anthony: I know you are referring to the Holy Father, duh! Again, why don't you tell that to Bishop Fellay? Are you part of that faction in the Society which "hates" Bishop Fellay for continuing the talks with Rome, talks, which according to you absolutely "have had no impact" (directly contradicting Bishop Fellay's pronouncements?)

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Scrooge,

They've had no immediate impact on the Holy Father himself. Others may indeed have been influenced.

John McFarland said...

Dear Scrooge,

Can you explain in a little detail how the cited paragraphs of Spe Salvi do not mean what I say they mean.

The Holy Father's description of the (if you will) requirements for damnation certain seem to imply that strait the gate and narrow the way that leads to Hell.

P.S. It seems to me fairly obvious that in the figure of Scrooge, Dickens was undertaking to produce a figure of conversion and charity to replace the Christian notions of conversion and charity. Note among other things that A Christmas Carol is a ghost story, and says about as much about the birth of our Lord and Savior as the decrees of Vatican II say about Hell.

LeonG said...

My comment about "scrooge" stands. Apt indeed.