Author Topic: Bishop Fellay Gave Rome a Clear Condition (Read 3334 times)

Stubborn · « **on:** January 30, 2017, 02:12:06 PM »

Link

In an interview with an independent French television station, Bishop Fellay commented on the current status of relations between Rome and the SSPX.

During a 20 minute interview with TVLibertés on January 29, 2017, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), commented on the crisis of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, the reaction of the clergy to today's confusion, the Rosary Crusade, and Pope Francis.

Bishop Fellay commented also on the Personal Prelature offered to the SSPX:

I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic."

On Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty

I think we are making headway here in the right direction. Rome is easing up. It is pretty recent; over the past two years now let’s say, Rome has been telling us that there are questions, or we can even say statements, put forward by the Council that are not required criteria for being Catholic. That means that we have the right not to agree and still be considered Catholic. And these questions are precisely the ones we dispute."

Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, confirmed the words of Bishop Fellay, according to Andrea Tornielli in Vatican Insider on January 30, 2017. "We are working at this moment on the completion of some aspects of the canonical solution, which will be the Personal Prelature."

In particular, Archbishop Pozzo confirmed an important piece of information made public by Bishop Fellay in the interview with TVLibertés:

The Holy See allows and tolerates the priestly ordinations of the Society of St. Pius X while continuing to consider them valid but not licit, after they disclose the names of the ordinands to the local bishop."

On the occasion of the priestly ordination of Fr. Daniel Sabur on July 2, 2016, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta revealed that a letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had been sent to Bishop Fellay. In it, it was stated that the SSPX could proceed in its priestly ordinations without the authorization from the local bishop, should communicate the names of the ordained priests.

We will publish the complete interview of Bishop Fellay in the near future.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2017, 03:37:34 PM »

The heading should read: Rome Gives Bishop Fellay a Clear condition.

Quote from: Vatican Insider 1/30/16

As far as doctrinal issues are concerned, the main problems seem to have been overcome in view of an agreement. Members of the Fraternity were apparently asked to remain faithful to the essential aspects of being a Catholic, in other words the “professio fidei”, belief in the validity of the sacraments celebrated with the Novus Ordo (the liturgy that resulted from post-conciliar reform) and obedience to the Pope. There was a discussion and a sharing of ideas regarding the relationship between the magisterium and tradition, while subjects linked to ecuмenism, religious freedom and the relationship between the Church and the world still need to be looked into further and could be the cause of continued disagreement.
http://www.lastampa.it/2017/01/30/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/fraternity-of-st-pius-x-ever-closer-to-reconciliation-xY7GVwCDVyST373inFczcP/pagina.html

Quote from: +Fellay

I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic."

Pure deceit. ABL had serious objections to the “professio fidei” non- dogmatic paragraph and rejected it.

Quote from: “professio fidei”

"Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act."
For more information see: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SECRET-SPECIAL-CHAPTER-OF-NEO-FSSPX

Bishop Fellay has already put the “professio fidei” into practice by his own interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, a "teaching" of the "authentic magisterium" which the Romans do not intend to proclaim... by a definitive act".

Quote from: +Fellay

About Pope Francis: “I see in our present Pope, Pope Francis, has a concern for souls, but in particular the souls that are rejected. Isolated souls, those who are set aside, or despised or who are in difficulty. What he calls ‘the existential peripheries’. Is it really the famous lost sheep? Is it that Pope Francis leaves aside the other 99 and is going to take care of that lost sheep? I think that's what he has in mind. I mean, maybe. You cannot give a global answer. (In) everything he has said, we see that he has that concern, a universal concern: migrants, those in prison, who are effectively men abandoned by others. It is a people who are in pain. Then there are the divorced, people who are also in distress. Then we are also rejected. And finally we are all in the same perspective. And then he is going to take care of those souls.”
Bishop Fellay, being interviewed by his spokesman, Father Loran, “Radio Courtoisie”, Friday, January 13 and broadcast on Thursday, January 26, 2017

Rome wants the SSPX "as they are" (now) so they can use the SSPX against the Dubia and its cardinals to make them recant or else. After they teach the Dubia cardinals and supporters a lesson, they will destroy the SSPX. It took them 3 months to destroy the 900+ years old Sovereign Order of Malta, how long will it take Francis to destroy the SSPX?

Incredulous · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2017, 08:05:46 PM »

Apostate Bernard!

AJNC · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2017, 12:19:22 AM »

"To the crowd we must say; we worship a God but it is the God one worships without superstition. To you Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this,that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees; all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine.If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, the God of Christians, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of men, his barbarism and repulsion of science, would Adonay and his priests caluminate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God ... religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay." Albert Pike (Quoted by Hutton Gibson in "The Enemy Is Here" pg.412 )

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2017, 12:07:15 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Apostate Bernard!

That's over the top and uncalled-for.

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2017, 03:42:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Incredulous
Apostate Bernard!

That's over the top and uncalled-for.

I'll stand my ground, regardless of your "thumbs down" Ladislaus.

"By putting the SSPX under Francis's newChurch, Bp. Fellay has apostatized the Faith, betrayed +ABL, the whole of Catholic tradition and the remnant faithful"

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2017, 01:02:25 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Incredulous
Apostate Bernard!

That's over the top and uncalled-for.

I'll stand my ground, regardless of your "thumbs down" Ladislaus.

"By putting the SSPX under Francis's newChurch, Bp. Fellay has apostatized the Faith, betrayed +ABL, the whole of Catholic tradition and the remnant faithful"

You have absolutely no idea what the term "apostasy" means. You're like the blundering sedevacantists who toss the term "heresy" about without understanding what the term even means.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2017, 01:10:20 PM »

Here's the real problem with +Fellay's position.

If it's possible for the SSPX to exist in communion with the Catholic hierarchy in the face of what amount to just some "problems within the Church" and a complete separation from them is not required in order to maintain the faith, then he's tacitly admitting that the SSPX has been in formal schism all these years.

+Fellay lays down the condition that the SSPX must remain the same after integration. It's inevitable that there will quickly be some cross-contamination from the Conciliar Church into the SSPX that will gradually cause assimilation and a dissolving of the resistance.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's inevitable that there will quickly be some cross-contamination from the Conciliar Church into the SSPX that will gradually cause assimilation and a dissolving of the resistance.

Yes, the SSPX's resistance (small R) is dissolving, and will continue to dissolve. That is the very reason for being for the Resistance to take over the controls, as it were. It is necessary.

There must be a resistance to the Modernism in the Vatican. Not some kind of tacit tolerance, but a manly, strong resistance to it.

If the SSPX was doing its job (fighting the good fight for Tradition) there would be no Resistance. All the Resistance personalities were strong and helpful supporters of the SSPX back in the day, back before the SSPX fell. The charge that they are all (outsiders/sedevacantists/troublemakers/malcontents/children of the evil one) simply doesn't ring true -- it doesn't line up with the evidence of reality.

Jovita · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2017, 08:08:11 PM »

More

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-clarity-needed-to-move-forward

"His Excellency explains that before the SSPX accepts a prelature, clarity from Rome is needed regarding errors of Vatican II."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2017, 08:26:49 PM »

:roll-laugh1:

+Fellay needn't hold his breath.

Asking for "clarity" from the modern-day Vatican?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2017, 09:45:16 PM »

Here is the interview with subtitles:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15a006596fdb2a02?projector=1

+Fellay should leave ABL’s name out of his deal. The Vatican Insider reports that the (SSPX) “was asked to remain faithful to the essential aspects of being a Catholic, in other words the “professio fidei”…”. ABL rejected the “profession fidei” which is the non-negotiable condition for the Romans.

In the quote below, ABL says: “They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity…”. That is a fact now.

Quote from: ABL

http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm

Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?

Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."

No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2017, 11:26:30 PM »

Talks between the Holy See and the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) have advanced far enough so that Vatican insiders are discussing dates for the signing of an agreement, according to a report in the French daily Le Figaro.

The dates under discussion, according to the Figaro report, are in May or July of this year.

Jean-Marie Guénois of Le Figaro, a veteran Vatican journalist, quotes unnamed Vatican officials who stress that the progress toward a final agreement regularizing the status of the breakaway group will be governed by the ability to reach an accord, rather than an artificial deadline. However, Guénois reports that appropriate dates for the signing of an agreement have been discussed—indicating a level of confidence that the accord is within reach.

The proposed dates, according to rumors circulating in Rome, are:

July 7: the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificuм, the papal docuмent establishing the traditional Latin Mass as the “extraordinary form” of the Latin rite.
May 13: the 100th annivesrary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30657

Incredulous · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2017, 11:57:09 PM »

Quote from: Jovita

More

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-clarity-needed-to-move-forward

"His Excellency explains that before the SSPX accepts a prelature, clarity from Rome is needed regarding errors of Vatican II."

Msgr. Fellay's "lip service" is cheap politics.
He has already publicly stated that 95% of Vatican II is acceptable?

Getting to Ladislaus point, the Fellay apostasy is his acceptance of two religions, co-existing together. The Roman Catholic Faith and the schismatic structure known as consiliarism foisted upon us by modernists (per Father Hesse).

Technically speaking, Fellay made himself "anathema", when he praised Benedict's change of the Tridentine Mass to the "extraordinary rite".

The Tridentine Mass was codified by St. Pope Pius V and anyone who dared to modify it was automatically excommunicated.

Bishop Fellay knows this. Apostasy is only one of his many problems.

Prayerful · « **Reply #14 on:** February 03, 2017, 05:10:23 AM »

Rorate Caeli suggests, or more correctly picks up a suggestion made by a Le Figaro correspondent that May 13 or July 7 are possibles. One obviously is the Fatima anniversary and the other is the Summorum Pontificorum anniversary.

Vague stuff, unknowable.