Author Topic: Interview w Bishop Fellay (Read 6278 times)

infobomber · « **Reply #15 on:** June 07, 2012, 02:53:43 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Bishop Fellay's ignorance of Benedict and Rome are displayed once again in this interview. It sorts of reminds me of doctors who don't have a clue about vaccines and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. And these are well-educated people!

And yet, I assume, you pay your taxes, go to work, buy their products (but maybe the organic ones), etc. How "pure" are you? Note that in the world you can co-exist with other people without partaking of their vaccines, nor positively contributing to their NWO. And most would agree that the Church is getting better, while the world is getting worse. When will you stop using their paper money, and living within their system? ... The analogy didn't work in my mind.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 07, 2012, 02:59:42 PM »

Quote

Telesphorus, I don't need to play the quote game with you.

It's not a game. The fact that you're non-responsive to the ideas, the fact that Bishop Fellay is non-responsive to these objections, is really the problem. The problem is one of Faith.

Quote

I have no authorities to cite, and I don't have much knowledge of the evolution of Abp. Lefebrve's thoughts.

Archbishop Lefebvre was a principled man, who adhered to principles. To speak of an "evolution of his thoughts" is wrong. He was doing his best to preserve the Catholic Faith.

Quote

I was bringing to attention the fact that Fellay's been superior general since '94, and everyone seems to have loved the benefits thus far, which he had a strong hand in creating.

That is nonsense. "Everyone seems to have loved the benefits" - quite an extravagant claim.

And more importantly, it doesn't matter if the SSPX was ten times as big and successful. It wouldn't matter if St. Mary's Kansas was actually economically thriving functioning without reliance on welfare and food stamps. Functioning with a median income that could actually support Catholic families.

It wouldn't matter if the Asia District was well-taken care of.

If Bishop Fellay stops calling modernists modernists, shakes hands with them, deals with them, with the excuse that "we have the mass and "freedom" (of course there's not much freedom for his priests, is there - freedom for him doesn't mean freedom to preach the Gospel and to tell the truth for anyone else.) then the SSPX is going to modernize. It's inevitable, that's what Archbishop Lefebvre warned about - the impossibility of collaborating with modernists because of a few concessions.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #17 on:** June 07, 2012, 02:59:51 PM »

Quote from: infobomber

I thought this was an informative interview. I really don't see Bishop Fellay being altogether different than he's ever been.

No, he's changed. Example:

Quote

However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.

Link to the entire letter: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Fellay-Letter-no-63-He-was-a-different-man

Quote

In the debate, we seem to fail to recognize that under him as superior general the Society has grown and prospered, even in spite of setbacks. It was under his influence that Summorum Pontificuм was issued, the excommunications were lifted, Rome opened itself to hear the Society's case, and the rosary crusades have been delivered to the Pope himself.

What did Summorum Pontificuм really accomplish? It supposedly says that if the faithful request the Traditional Latin Mass, it should be given to them. Well, my diocese didn't offer it even when the TLM was requested. The bishop of my diocese at the time (who was such a liberal) was more interested in the spanish mass. But it doesn't matter anyway, because most diocesean Masses are hybrids. As for the "excommunications", they were pure bullcrap and were not to be taken seriously. Why Bishop Fellay cares if he's exiled from modernist Rome is beyond me.

Quote

Apparently also he has exerted so much influence that the Pope himself goes against most of the Curia, and most of the world for that matter, to offer a unique prelature to the SSPX.

So the Society has been told they must accept Vatican II and its teachings on Jєωs, yet that is to be considered a "unique prelature"? It's no different than the Institute of the Good Shepard, who was originally told they did not have to accept Vatican II. Now they've been told they must.

Quote

If people have been fine with him since 1994, and he hasn't sold any of us down the river yet, then why now is his judgement held suspect?

Because he hasn't done it yet, we should automatically trust him? That is simply not logical. His judgement is held suspect because he has changed.

Quote

It is obvious that he thinks this is God's will ("I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection."). It is obvious that he is being prudent.

That is the mistake. HUGE mistake. How does he know it's God's Will? How does he expect to be protected by the very people who are responsible for the crisis in the Church to begin with?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:00:36 PM »

Quote from: KyrieEleison

I saw that he said again Rome is not asking the Society to accept vatii but is that really what is important?
Isn't Rome accepting the faith what matters? Or at least the Pope?

He says Rome isn't asking that but in his own statements he accepts it. Who is he trying to kid?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #19 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:04:05 PM »

Quote from: infobomber

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Bishop Fellay's ignorance of Benedict and Rome are displayed once again in this interview. It sorts of reminds me of doctors who don't have a clue about vaccines and the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. And these are well-educated people!

And yet, I assume, you pay your taxes, go to work, buy their products (but maybe the organic ones), etc. How "pure" are you? Note that in the world you can co-exist with other people without partaking of their vaccines, nor positively contributing to their NWO. And most would agree that the Church is getting better, while the world is getting worse. When will you stop using their paper money, and living within their system? ... The analogy didn't work in my mind.

This analogy does not work in my mind. There is a difference betweeen doing things you must do to survive, and "reconciling" with heretics who you can most certainly survive without. The Society has survived just fine without them for over 20 years.

infobomber · « **Reply #20 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:15:39 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

What did Summorum Pontificuм really accomplish?

It laid down that the Mass was never abrogated, which was the ammunition we needed to stick it to the resistant priest or bishop. Yes, people still resist the Mass, but they don't have that guise to hide under. And traditon is growning immensely within the Church, so while the overall situation is still terrible, it is much much better. And even better since BXVI. Even Fr Cekada said this in his recent sermon on Trinity Sunday. My diocese has five diocesan Latin Masses. Before SP it was one. What will it be in ten years? Who knows. I wouldn't know how to calculate it, but I imagine the rate of increase within the dioceses is at par with (or maybe better than) the independent groups.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

So the Society has been told they must accept Vatican II and its teachings on Jєωs, yet that is to be considered a "unique prelature"?

In the interview Bishop Fellay said "Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite" and that an agreement would take place only if there was "sufficient protection", so I don't understand where you got these ideas from.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

How does he expect to be protected by the very people who are responsible for the crisis in the Church to begin with?

I think he isn't expecting to be protected by them, but by God. That's why I think he said "I place my trust in the Good Lord and in His Divine Providence."

MaterDominici · « **Reply #21 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:19:44 PM »

Quote from: infobomber

My diocese has five diocesan Latin Masses. Before SP it was one.

My diocese:
before - 1
now - 1

infobomber · « **Reply #22 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:21:35 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

This analogy does not work in my mind. There is a difference betweeen doing things you must do to survive, and "reconciling" with heretics who you can most certainly survive without. The Society has survived just fine without them for over 20 years.

I doubt the survive part. There are places left in the world to move to which are outside of the grasp of the NWO. Few, but they are there. I assume you and all of us have found of peace co-existing with the evil systems we live in. Why are we not more militant. We accept compromise all day in worldly matters. But with the Pope ... And this compromise in the face of a clearly diabolic leader. At least Abp. Lefebvre regarded then Cardinal Ratzinger as an ally of some type.

infobomber · « **Reply #23 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:24:50 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Link to the entire letter: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Fellay-Letter-no-63-He-was-a-different-man

"For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted."

Do we not agree that this Pope intends to maintain tradition? I don't see any change in essence from '03 and '12 in Fellay. And as he said "sufficient protection". Maybe he'll surprise everyone and pull back when the signs don't appear in the deal.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #24 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:25:23 PM »

Quote from: infobomber

It laid down that the Mass was never abrogated, which was the ammunition we needed to stick it to the resistant priest or bishop. Yes, people still resist the Mass, but they don't have that guise to hide under.

If Benedict XVI had said "The Bogus Ordo is gone, and every priest must now celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively or else they will be excommunicated", then I would agree that SP did a heck of a lot of good. But he never said that, and never will. His goal is not to restore Tradition or the TLM, but to create a cosmetic liturgy. He stated the following in 2009:

Quote

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

Now I ask you infobomber, does this sound like a man who is, as Bishop Fellay claims, "a friend of Tradition"?

Quote

In the interview Bishop Fellay said "Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite" and that an agreement would take place only if there was "sufficient protection", so I don't understand where you got these ideas from.

That's not what Cardinal Koch said. He said that Vatican II is binding on all Catholics and that the SSPX must accept it if they wish to be Catholic. No problem for Fellay though, he admits that he has accepted 95% of Vatican II.

Quote

I think he isn't expecting to be protected by them, but by God. That's why I think he said "I place my trust in the Good Lord and in His Divine Providence."

That is about the equivalent of preparing to jump into a pool filled with crocodiles, and before jumping in hoping that God will protect you. God doesn't necessarily protect someone from doing something stupid.

infobomber · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:29:07 PM »

Cardinal Koch isn't the big man, so who cares what he says. And as for the Pope, it is well known that he has been friendly since the 80s. He isn't perfect, but he is friendly. Read the preface to Reid's book if you want.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2012, 03:29:12 PM »

Quote from: infobomber

I doubt the survive part. There are places left in the world to move to which are outside of the grasp of the NWO. Few, but they are there.

True, but no one will be able to escape the NWO. We must wait for God to send the chastisement.

Quote

At least Abp. Lefebvre regarded then Cardinal Ratzinger as an ally of some type.

Not true. ABL told Ratzinger that he and modernist Rome were attempting to de-Christianize society, while the SSPX was working to Christianize it. I cannot find the exact quote, so hopefully someone else will post it.

Quote

Do we not agree that this Pope intends to maintain tradition?

No, I'm afraid we do not agree. He does not want to maintain Tradition. He seeks to destroy it.

catherineofsiena · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:17:38 PM »

**It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? **

So he just confirmed one of the rumors?

**DICI: If there is a canonical recognition, what would happen to the chapels affiliated with the Society and independent of the diocese? Would the bishops of the Society continue to administer Confirmation and provide the Holy Oils?

Bishop Fellay: If they work with us, there will be no problem: it will be exactly as it is now. If not, everything will depend on what these chapels mean by independence. **

Consider this a shot across the bow. This confirms what has been said for a while; the independents must go with the Society or be considered excommunicated and schismatics.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:20:10 PM »

Quote from: catherineofsiena

**It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? **

So he just confirmed one of the rumors?

**DICI: If there is a canonical recognition, what would happen to the chapels affiliated with the Society and independent of the diocese? Would the bishops of the Society continue to administer Confirmation and provide the Holy Oils?

Bishop Fellay: If they work with us, there will be no problem: it will be exactly as it is now. If not, everything will depend on what these chapels mean by independence. **

Consider this a shot across the bow. This confirms what has been said for a while; the independents must go with the Society or be considered excommunicated and schismatics.

Good catch.

Yes, it's exactly as Archbishop Lefebvre said: they are betraying us, shaking hands with modernists, putting themselves under the control of modernists.

LordPhan · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2012, 04:20:11 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: infobomber
I doubt the survive part. There are places left in the world to move to which are outside of the grasp of the NWO. Few, but they are there.

True, but no one will be able to escape the NWO. We must wait for God to send the chastisement.

Quote
At least Abp. Lefebvre regarded then Cardinal Ratzinger as an ally of some type.

Not true. ABL told Ratzinger that he and modernist Rome were attempting to de-Christianize society, while the SSPX was working to Christianize it. I cannot find the exact quote, so hopefully someone else will post it.

Quote
Do we not agree that this Pope intends to maintain tradition?

No, I'm afraid we do not agree. He does not want to maintain Tradition. He seeks to destroy it.

Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1988:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything – a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries –we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society."