Author Topic: Bishop Fellay interview out of Menzingen (Read 3340 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** May 25, 2012, 02:53:03 AM »

Sorry if someone already posted this, but I couldn't find it.

Seems to warrant its own thread, all considered:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2012, 06:50:04 AM »

Not sure what to make of this video interview.

On the one hand, Bishop Fellay clearly says that, on the subject of religious liberty, "In our discussions with Rome, they do not say that there is a right to error."

This of course is our main problem with DH.

On the other hand, there seems to be something "different" in his "understanding" or description of the problem of religious liberty.

He says that people do not understand what Rome intended to teach on religious liberty.

At the very least then, we should all be able to admit that, whether or not Rome intended to teach a right to error in DH, the words of the doc themselves are capable of lending that interpretation, and are themselves the cause of the "confusion" (and in need of editing therefore).

I seem to remember that Fr. Congar (Arch-Modernist and briefly Cardinal) was given the task of reconciling the teachings of DH with the Syllabus of Pius IX.

He admitted that "certain provisions of DH do say, materially, the opposite of the Syllabus." (Parphrase, but easy to verify).

The point: It seems that Menzingen has learned trads will not just roll over and take a deal. Therefore, they are developing more persuasive arguments very recently, instead of resorting to bare authority.

This makes me very nervous, and a little confused on certain points.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2012, 07:03:04 AM »

In particular:

If the whole mess (e.g., religious liberty, eciumenism, collegiality, etc) are just big misunderstandings, than would it still be right for me to maintain my line that acceptance of a merely practical deal is implicit acceptance of doctrinal plurlaism?

In other words, is it really pluralism, if it is just a big misunderstanding, and we actually all believe the same doctrines?

On the other hand, does anyone really pretend that the Romans/Conciliarists believe the same things that Catholics of the pre-Vatican II era believed?

And if not, is it really just a misunderstanding?

And even if it all started from a misunderstanding (i.e., because the docuмents of V2 were deliberately ambiguous), does it not stand nevertheless that we are 2 different religions (and therefore a deal = acceptance of pluralism)?

This video has caused me much confusion.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2012, 07:14:48 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Not sure what to make of this video interview.

On the one hand, Bishop Fellay clearly says that, on the subject of religious liberty, "In our discussions with Rome, they do not say that there is a right to error."

This of course is our main problem with DH.

On the other hand, there seems to be something "different" in his "understanding" or description of the problem of religious liberty.

He says that people do not understand what Rome intended to teach on religious liberty.

At the very least then, we should all be able to admit that, whether or not Rome intended to teach a right to error in DH, the words of the doc themselves are capable of lending that interpretation, and are themselves the cause of the "confusion" (and in need of editing therefore).

I seem to remember that Fr. Congar (Arch-Modernist and briefly Cardinal) was given the task of reconciling the teachings of DH with the Syllabus of Pius IX.

He admitted that "certain provisions of DH do say, materially, the opposite of the Syllabus." (Parphrase, but easy to verify).

The point: It seems that Menzingen has learned trads will not just roll over and take a deal. Therefore, they are developing more persuasive arguments very recently, instead of resorting to bare authority.

This makes me very nervous, and a little confused on certain points.

I don't feel that there's really anything confusing about it. Fellay and his retinue want this deal in the worst way but they know that the Three, a fair number of priests, and a significant portion of the faithful are against a deal with "Modernist Rome." Fellay knows that Ratzinger et al. will be hard-pressed to swallow the deal if it just means only getting part of the SSPX; Ratzinger needs the public coup of a much-publicized full reconciliation to save his legacy, which is currently ranking a little below Rodrigo Borgia. Naturally, the roadblock for the still-resistant elements of the Society is Vatican II and the heresies it espouses. The text of the docuмents is freely available in most languages, so neither Rome nor Fellay can exaggerate or mislead as to their content. The only thing they can do is utilize the well-worn Modernist "correct interpretation" device, that is, "interpreting the Council in the light of Tradition," which is absurd given that content of the docuмents is objectively the antithesis of Tradition.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2012, 08:43:59 AM »

In ten years no one in Opus Fellay will think there's anything wrong with religious liberty or Dignitatis Humanae.

(oh that was just some misunderstanding, it's been settled and resolved!)

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2012, 09:51:46 AM »

It was an excellent interview. It's quite interesting that Rome is now stating openly what Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX has said since the Council. There is no natural right to error, and whether or not this is regarded as a correction or a clarification, it would still be a welcome step going ahead.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2012, 09:57:41 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

It was an excellent interview. It's quite interesting that Rome is now stating openly what Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX has said since the Council. There is no natural right to error, and whether or not this is regarded as a correction or a clarification, it would still be a welcome step going ahead.

Judge by actions, not words Nishant.

They only revoke the "right to error" for traditionalists.

Dignitatis Humanae is typically modernist in that it denies any breach with the past while it implicitly rejects the past conduct of the Church, and I would say, it is very hard to argue that it doesn't flagrantly contradict past magisterium.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:11:00 AM »

Telesphorus, I read a good article on this topic a while back, I'll see if I can find it.

Anyway, I would have preferred the Council had framed it as Pope Pius XII did, in terms of religious tolerance, because that distinguishes better between truth and error, but still it was probably more concerned with the religious liberty of Catholics in non-Catholic (e.g. Communist) countries.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:13:06 AM »

If the spreading of error, of false religions, is an injustice to those corrupted by those errors, it cannot be granted immunity as a matter of the natural law.

When immunity is granted for public false worship, it is a matter of pragmatism, never of justice.

But to say that human reason has now discovered that the granting of such immunity is necessary, means that it must be a matter of natural law, not of mere pragmatism.

If it is a principle of human reason that false worship must be granted immunity, then the Church was wrong for centuries. The past practice of the Church is implicitly condemned.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:15:00 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

but still it was probably more concerned with the religious liberty of Catholics in non-Catholic (e.g. Communist) countries.

That is very altruistic regarding their motives.

John Courtney Murray argued contraception would have to be legal on the basis of religious liberty.

I think Rick Santorum recently made comments in a similar vein.

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:22:36 AM »

Well, Ci Riesce puts it in these terms.

Quote

The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to higher and more general norms, which in some circuмstances permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a <greater good.>

Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

So you're right, and I don't disagree, the extent of toleration granted is a matter of pragmatism, but it also involves some considerations of prudence. Pope Pius XII continues that the Catholic statesmen must weigh the possible harmful consequences of toleration against the good that is expected to be gained from it.

Anyway, the right to immunity is not absolute and unlimited, so I don't think the past practice of the Church is condemned by it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:27:22 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Anyway, the right to immunity is not absolute and unlimited,

That is a meaningless qualification. An escape clause. But it doesn't change the fact that the docuмent intends to reverse the practice of the Church.

Quote

so I don't think the past practice of the Church is condemned by it.

For 1900 years the Church thought that false worship should be suppressed, and since the 60s they teach modernism in their own seminaries.

The actions and the principles behind the actions are what matter, not jesuitical sleight of hand.

Nishant · « **Reply #12 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:37:46 AM »

Quote

That is a meaningless qualification. An escape clause.

Well, if that's the case, I prefer to think of it as Christ preventing the Council from teaching what could well be heresy.

But I don't think it's a meaningless qualification, because it seems to me there is a difference between rights that are absolute per se and rights that are circuмscribed within certain conditions.

Besides, here is something else - the Council says there is a duty to seek the truth, and to embrace truth once it is known. If men are bound to seek the truth, are they free to embrace error?

Quote

For 1900 years the Church thought that false worship should be suppressed, and since the 60s they teach modernism in their own seminaries.

True enough.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 25, 2012, 10:39:32 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Besides, here is something else - the Council says there is a duty to seek the truth, and to embrace truth once it is known.

What does "seeking truth" mean in such a context?

Benedict XVI has called agnostics "pilgrims of truth."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** May 25, 2012, 11:00:35 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Nishant2011
Besides, here is something else - the Council says there is a duty to seek the truth, and to embrace truth once it is known.

What does "seeking truth" mean in such a context?

Benedict XVI has called agnostics "pilgrims of truth."

The ambiguity of Vatican II is the unclean spirit that pervades it, and gives rise to error, even if the error isn't obvious to all. This "duty to seek the truth" has become the practice of "dialogue," whereby Catholics and non-Catholics get together and attempt to "discover" the truth, presuming from the start that no one has the truth.

If agnostics sit down with Catholics and everyone attempts to "discover the truth" then whatever they come up with they have "a duty... to embrace it once it is known?" You see, it makes of such gatherings a sort of authoritative council, in the image of the source, the unclean spirit of Vatican II. It is Modernism at its core, whereby everyone's faith is that which comes from his own imagination, and as such defines "truth" and therefore truth is relative, it can mean different things to different people. As Bishop Williamson says, it is subjectivism. It ultimately destroys objective truth, and as Pope St. Pius X says, it destroys all religion.