Interesting posts were made by John Lane of Australia:
http://tinyurl.com/8h53cfl (Go to the link to read the posts in their proper context)
I also agree with Mr. Baldwin (the Archbishop always spoke with "rome" when asked), except that Holli and Fr. Roberts are right that the Archbishop's stance shifted as the facts became clearer to him.
As for the CNS interview, I had a very lengthy conversation with Bishop Fellay on Sunday, during which I told him that what he said in the CNS interview was indefensible, and he told me it was a complete hatchet job.
I find it rather presumptuous that we are expected to believe +Fellay allowed
CNS to set up studio in his home and shoot for an hour without allowing him to
make his own tape, or without giving him his own copy of the continuous
recording.
I find it rather presumptuous that we are expected to believe that +Fellay did not
script and approve the entire contents of this interview beforehand.
I find it rather presumptuous that we are expected to believe that +Fellay is the
hapless victim in this interview by CNS, that he was caught unprepared, and that
we owe him our sympathy and continued, unrestricted trust as a consequence.
He spoke to them for 50 minutes. They edited that down to about 6 minutes. They cut and pasted the video and conflated things which were said quite separately, and took them out of context, and put them into a false context.
And we are supposed to believe that these interviewers pulled a fast one on
+Fellay, who is entirely new at interviews, was entirely trusting of these guys, and
was led down the garden path by journalists who had ulterior motives? In other
words, when a bishop says things to a reporter that could possibly be used to
give him trouble, that the bishop should be forgiven across the board by everyone
at all times and forever?
Well, if that's the case, why is +Fellay so penalizing of +Williamson who made a
few indiscreet slips with a Sweedish TV reporter in November of 2008 that
proceeded to haunt him for years to come -- where was +Fellay's just mercy in
that case? Or, do we have here another application of the parable of the wicked
servant in Matthew cap. xviii, whose lord forgave him his debt but then he went
out and proceeded to demand payment from his fellow servant?
For example, on religious liberty he said he was conscious of his audience, Americans, for whom "Religious liberty is their first dogma!" and he was putting an argument ad hominem to them, citing V2 and pointing out that even that does not teach the religious liberty which Conciliarists preach and believe.
Taking this out of its context, CNS made it appear that Bishop Fellay was giving his own assessment of Dignitatis Humanae. He wasn't.
So now +Fellay decides to cozy up to the Americanist heresy, defined and
condemned over a century ago, yet now it's suddenly okay? And we're supposed
to roll over and take it? What's with this? Does he think we're this stupid?
The mere fact that a lot of Americans are too poorly educated in the Faith to know
that Americanism is a defined heresy, +Fellay, who
is not an American, and
ought to know better, instead of taking this opportunity to educate (in which
case, of course, the smarmy CNS editor would have deleted this segment, but
whatever!) He chose instead to take sides with a CONDEMNED HERESY in order to
"get along" with Americans in ERROR, and now this is an EXCUSE????
One thing's for d***ed sure: +Williamson would NEVER make this blunder. It's
simply not in his character. And on this point alone, he is FAR more qualified to
handle the position of SG, if any bishop is to take this office. And +Fellay is
most definitely NOT qualified. He has been promoted to his level of
INCOMPETENCE, according to the Peter Principle, which is normally applied to
secular offices.
If he weren't a bishop, he'd be a "crybaby." But for a bishop, I can't use the words
that apply, because they're worse.
Kyrie eleison.
In a separate part of the conversation, I said, well you have to ensure that when you speak publicly you maintain the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, or you will cause the kind of chaos and confusion in the SSPX we've all witnessed over the past few months. He misunderstood me, and thought I was suggesting that even if he himself no longer agrees with the Archbishop, he should stick to his line. Bishop Fellay reacted strongly, and said "No, I'm not convinced that Dignitatis Humanae is correct!" He said in the DICI interview that his position on Dignitatis Humanae is that of Archbishop Lefebvre. Having discussed it with him quite thoroughly, I believe that. He was quite distressed at the suggestion that this is not true.
I suggested that he ought to have said a lot more in the DICI interview on this subject, and he conceded that he should have, and said that they had learned a lot of lessons about communication from [recent] events.
He learned a lot of lessons about communication? Are these lessons he learned
watching +Williamson make mistakes, or does +Fellay have to make them
himself before he learns the lesson??? He won't answer that, I'm sure. He wants
to continue to punish +Williamson while everyone forgives him for the same
blunders. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, as of NOW.
Later, we'll change that rule if it's convenient at the time, you see. (Bow, scrape.)
We'll change our rule but we won't be "shifting our position," because that's what
the Modernists do, and we can complain about them. But remember, what's good
for the goose isn't good for the gander -- for now..........
It was a very frank, very open, conversation, in private. We covered most of the controversies of the past few months. Yesterday morning I asked him if I could repeat what he told me at my discretion, and he said "Yes." So if anybody has any questions about anything at all relating to the "deal" I am happy to answer them if I have an answer from Bishop Fellay. One thing I forgot to ask was about was the "rumours from Austria" controversy.
OK, well keep in mind I'm not giving my view on that, but what the Bishop said to me about his own views.
First, there's no deal, and no real prospect of one. Read this brief summary of Bishop Fellay's conference here on Sunday: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewt...&p=12842#p12842
Okay, so let's print this blog out and make it into a poster and hang it on the wall,
so that when the news of a deal comes along, we can look at our poster, and cry,
saying, "but he promised there was no deal and no real prospect of one.
Boo-hoo." And when we ask him, we'll get the reply, "I said there was no real
prospect of a deal, but I didn't say there would not be a deal."
Then what? Answer: Then, we'll have a poster, and a memory.... :)
Second, Bishop Fellay was responding to something unprecedented. He was told that Benedict wanted to recognise the SSPX "as it is" and not require any change or compromise at all. He said in his conference on Sunday that all through the process he was trying to work out "what Rome really wants" and that it never became clear until the end - when the June 13 text was presented.
I think it's fair to say that Bishop Fellay did not, and does not, hold to the line "no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement" but the circuмstances he faced weren't similar to what the Fraternity had faced ever before. Archbishop Lefebvre was never faced with "come in as you are, no conditions". Bishop Fellay thought, well if that's truly what's on offer, how can I refuse to discuss it?
His own stance - and he was very emphatic about this in both public and private - is that neither he nor the Fraternity will ever accept Vatican II or agree that the New Mass is licit. He said, to say it is licit is to admit that it is good, but it’s not good.
QUOTE (Seraphim @ Aug 7 2012, 01:06 AM)
It would have been interesting to hear what he had to say on that score, and if he claimed not to be diverging from the path of ABL, then why have the traditional Benedictines, Dominicans, and the other 3 SSPX bishops (in their letter) believed him to be heading down another path [?]
Well, you need to distinguish what people feared and suspected during the period leading up to June 13 from their position now.
I know for a fact from other sources that neither de Galarreta nor Tissier is worried that a deal might still happen.
This is rich! We're supposed to take it on this blogger's word +de Galarreta
and +de Mallerais think about it, without having either of their opinions voiced,
and PROBABLY because they're forbidden to voice their opinions -- because if they
could do so, then this DAMAGE CONTROL propaganda machine wouldn't have the
greasy wheels spinning as it does in this paragraph, above.
QUOTE (Seraphim @ Aug 7 2012, 01:06 AM)
The secret meetings and as-yet undisclosed secret preamble; etc.
He was a lot less secretive than I and many others thought. He told me that in April or May (I can’t recall which) he gave several conferences in France, one of them to 70 priests (I think that’s what he said – it could have been 70 people, but I think he said “priests”), in which he read out the Preamble and the various versions of it. He said he wanted to share the information with everybody in the Fraternity, but he was constrained by the interminable leaks to the whole world.
Perfect. This is called a
Communist tactic, or in Our Lady's words, one of the
errors of Russia. Why do something you don't want to do, when you can not do
it and then come around later and claim that you did do it?
What matters is the
perception of reality, not reality as we would normally understand it to be.
So he was only willing to read things out, which he did. I am surprised that we heard no reports of the contents of these conferences, and I am wondering if somebody in France who attended one of them can comment.
I promise to hold my breath. Really I do! Just like +Fellay read the Preamble to
the conferences like he says he did, to 70 priests. Wait. 70 people. No. 70 church
mice. Yeah. That's the ticket.
QUOTE (Seraphim @ Aug 7 2012, 01:06 AM)
In other words, even if Bishop Fellay can legitimately sidestep suspicion with regard to the CNS interview
Another thing I asked him about on that score was the comment that “many things we thought were from V2 were not in fact from V2 but the application”. He said that too was completely misleadingly edited. He was pointing out that the Modernists had always insisted when opposed by trads that their programme was authorised by Vatican II, but what became clear in the doctrinal discussions was that their stance had shifted. They were now being much more precise about the source and authority of their positions. An example, quite striking in its way, was the original text that “rome” presented at the start of the discussions went something like this: “On Ecuмenism, you must accept the doctrine of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church; on Collegiality, you must accept the doctrine of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church; on Religious Liberty, you must accept the doctrine of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Here we are again. If he meant to say that misinterpretations of Vatican II come
from using the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, [sic] then why didn't
he say that in the interview?? Wait. He did but they edited it out?? How many
interviews has he done again, two? Three? Still learning?
So they recognise that the doctrine of the CCC is somewhat different from that of Vatican II. Bishop Fellay specifically commented, “The CCC is still erroneous.” But that wasn’t the point he was making in the CNS interview. He was simply pointing out that the Modernists are shifting their position subtly but definitely.
Maybe I'm cruel or whatever, but I find it rather difficult to cope with hearing a
man complain about Modernists "shifting their position" in 2012 when Pope Saint
Pius X, after whom the Society is named, very patiently explained 105 years ago
in Pascendi dominici gregis that Modernists shift their position. He said, and this
was 105 years ago (oh right I said that already), that you have to "tear the mask
off of them" to expose their machinations and devices, like shifting their position.
It seems to me that +Fellay is losing this battle at least in part because he's too
diplomatic. He's afraid of making his ENEMY feel uncomfortable. He sees them
shifting their position, and he falls for the trap, and they know he will, because
he's weak this way. He allows them the power to shift their position, instead of
coming right out and sticking it in their face -- YOU ARE SHIFTING YOUR
POSITION! THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. If he would simply call them out on it,
then they wouldn't have that power, but he prefers to give them the power, and
then later, he can whimper like a wimp and complain that they shifted their
position. He might BE a bishop, but he's not acting like one, I'm sorry. Bishop
+Williamson would never stand for this. They should trade places. Then we'd
see some real progress.
To answer the various questions about how this came about:
Binx,
On religious liberty, the bishop commented extensively in his conference, which was filmed and I hope it will be published by somebody at some point. I don’t have a copy, and I don’t upload videos, so it won’t be me.
But in any case Bishop Fellay will be giving his conference at all the main mass centres across Australia, so there will be plenty of reports about what he says.
Let's be clear about this: +Fellay gave an interview in Menzingen to CNS and
did not take the precaution of running his own camera and making his own
recording, nor did he obtain an unedited tape original from CNS, but rather made
the INEXCUSABLE blunder of relying on the CNS crew to supply him with the
recording, after which time, when they said, "Oh, yes, you can have a copy. Just
as soon as we can arrange it for you," he sheepishly said, "okay," knowing full
well, that when Rome told ABL, "Oh, yes, you can have a bishop. Just as soon as
we can arrange it for you," that was when ABL realized they were lying. But now,
+Fellay has to make his own mistakes. He can't learn from ABL's mistakes. He
can't learn from +Williamson's mistakes, nor can he forgive +Williamson for his
mistakes, but +Fellay can demand from everyone that we all forgive +Fellay for
his mistakes.
We have to repeat the lessons, because they are difficult to learn, as +Fellay has
discovered, and
we will not be forgiven for not learning them, even though we
must forgive +Fellay for not learning them. Got it?
The doctrine he presented on religious liberty was exactly that of the Catholic Church, and his criticism of Dignitatis Humanae was precisely that of Archbishop Lefebvre. He emphasised that error has no rights, so that there cannot be a right to choose or to practice a false religion, and especially there cannot be any right to practice a false religion publicly! He used the word “tolerance” several times, emphasising that error can only be tolerated, never approved.
Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Australia
Bishop Fellay gave his first post-GC Conference here yesterday.
http://tinyurl.com/9joh9el
In it he ran over the history of the contacts with "rome" over the past ten or twelve years, highlighting particularly the fact that they had demanded at several points that the Fraternity accept V2 and the New Mass, and which demand had always been refused.
The bishop gave a lot of detail about the contacts over the past nine months. He provided dates for the various key events, and explained what he was doing on each occasion, and what was in each of the texts. He said that things are back to their starting point, since the notion that "rome" would approve the Fraternity without making any demands for compromise, has been shown to be false. Benedict's text of June 13 made this abundantly clear.
He said there are two possible outcomes now - either renewed excommunications and a declaration of schism (he thinks this less likely) or that the Fraternity will be left as it is (he thinks this the likeliest outcome). A renewed round of discussions was not mentioned as a possibility. What he did say was that he didn't think that the relationship with "rome" could now be repaired "in this pontificate".
Well, that looks good on pixels, but how much does it count? Is this something that
+Fellay is willing to say out loud and be heard saying, or, is it something that he's
going to come back and say this was a "hatchet job" and his words were taken
out of context, and he didn't mean it that way at all. You see, that's called "Crying
wolf!" You can't get away with a wimpy excuse like that in a big boy's world. It
might work in the sandbox, or on the sand lot or even in the high school debate
team. But this is the real world, and this is playing for keeps. It really seems to
me that we need a grownup in the SG office and not a beanie boy.
I'll try and write up some more detailed comments when I get time.
Topic: Discussion with Bp. Fellay (John Lanes posts) (Read 3999 times)