Author Topic: New Interview with Bishop Fellay DICI (Read 1614 times)

Luker · « **on:** April 24, 2014, 07:02:40 PM »

Here is a posting of a new interview with his excellency Bishop Fellay conducted by DICI. Some here may be interested in reading it. Here is the link:

http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/bishop-fellay-the-church-and-the-society-of-st-pius-x-news/

A couple of noteworthy question and answers:

Le Rocher: Pope John XXIII and John Paul II are to be “canonized” on April 27. Should we be surprised at such a decision? What can we do?

Bishop Fellay: We mustn’t be surprised; what they want is to canonize the Council and there is no easier way to do so than to canonize the Popes behind the Council. What can we do? – I would say that we have already tried everything we could, as far as acting on Rome goes; they do not listen to us anyway, and do not want to hear anything. All that is left is to pray, and to recall the arguments that we have already published. We had sent an important file to protest against the canonization of John XXIII, and we’ve done the same thing for John Paul II. They received our text, but the one who was supposed to write a report on it swept our arguments away with the back of his hand, saying that anyway, we were against the Council… There has been no serious effort to bother to take our arguments into consideration. They have been unbelievable casual about it.

Le Rocher: There are some who claim that Bishop Fellay wants an agreement with Rome at any price.

Bishop Fellay: That makes no sense! I have never sought one myself, but I thought it my duty to examine the Roman proposal in 2011-2012. Now it would be folly. Where do they get such ideas? I do maintain, however, that we must try to do all the good we can for as many souls as possible. All the good we can do in Rome could then descend upon the whole Church and do good to thousands of souls. We have to try. It is normal; it is obvious. It is very limited for now, but it is all in God’s hands. Let us do what we can and there are still people in Rome who say that the Church will be restored with and by Tradition.

Le Rocher: Has Rome made an official approach to renew contact with you since the election of Pope Francis?

Bishop Fellay: Rome made a “non-official” approach to renew contact with us, but nothing more, and I have not asked for an audience as I did after Benedict XVI’s election. For me, things at present are very simple: we stay as we are. Some concluded from my close contact with Rome in 2012 that I regard the necessity of a canonical recognition as a supreme principle. Preserving the Faith and our traditional Catholic identity is essential and remains our first principle.

I thought it noteworthy that +Fellay mentioned a "non-official" contact from Rome. I wonder if this is the source of all the immanent deal/recognition rumours?? Just speculation on my part it still seems to me that the most realistic assessment is No Deal. Bishop Fellay did say he hasn't requested an audience with Francis, is this of any special note? I think he had an audience with Benedict XVI in 2005 didn't he??

Nickolas · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2014, 11:09:17 PM »

Bishop Fellay said: "I do maintain, however, that we must try to do all the good we can for as many souls as possible. All the good we can do in Rome could then descend upon the whole Church and do good to thousands of souls. We have to try. It is normal; it is obvious. It is very limited for now, but it is all in God’s hands. Let us do what we can and there are still people in Rome who say that the Church will be restored with and by Tradition.

Bishop Fellay has never retracted his Doctrinal Declaration nor his Six Conditions. These docuмents do give the impression of an opposite inclination than he indicates in this interview or rather public relations posting.

Has not Rome and entire Church had the Traditional Latin Mass for 17 centuries give or take and what have they done with it? Rome has attempted to destroy the Mass, priests who say it, and societies who enable it to continue. Are the stupid laity and priests/bishops now believe a fanciful dream that somehow, someway, the SSPX will storm in and save the Church from itself? Perhaps the Bishops will stage a dance for us and provide entertainment. Maybe a singing nun too with some clowns to make us laugh.

What is obvious here is perhaps the deception of the century by churchmen who know much better. Those Catholics who call out truth in the midst of all this are called protestants while the smoke of satan has fully enveloped the Vatican and some who frequent there.

soulguard · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2014, 07:40:06 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

An excellent interview that well ought to stem the tide of sheer idiocy and hysteria, at least for those who are honest enough. Jesus and Mary's order remains firm and faithful, while its detractors and enemies who attempt to divide it are doing Satan's work.

I agree with you Caminus, and I dont think Bishop Fellay is a modernist. I dont think it is impossible that some subversive element has infiltrated the SSPX in an attempt to destroy it. Bishop Fellay probably has a price on his head, he is declaring himself an obstacle to assimilation into the conciliar church. His enemies are the enemies of tradition.

God bless him.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2014, 08:39:39 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

An excellent interview that well ought to stem the tide of sheer idiocy and hysteria, at least for those who are honest enough. Jesus and Mary's order remains firm and faithful, while its detractors and enemies who attempt to divide it are doing Satan's work.

Honest enough?

Quote from: Bishop Fellay

I have never sought one [i.e., an agreement with Rome] myself, but I thought it my duty to examine the Roman proposal in 2011-2012.

Surely this is not an honest statement. If it were, it would render the letter of the 3 bishops completely idiotic, and, while die-hard supporters of Bishop Fellay may consider Bishop Williamson to be idiotic, I don't think even they would attribute idiocy to the other two bishops of the SSPX.

In fact, this statement of the bishop's is contrary to the known facts. While I do not doubt that, as of right now, Bishop Fellay has no plans to sign any agreement with Rome, it is abundantly clear to anyone with eyes to see that he has sought an agreement in the past. Furthermore, based on the recent articles I've recently read here on this forum from the SSPX suggesting that doctrinal agreement with Rome is not needed before a practical agreement is reached, it seems that the groundwork is being laid for an agreement sometime in the future.

soulguard · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2014, 09:06:55 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Caminus
An excellent interview that well ought to stem the tide of sheer idiocy and hysteria, at least for those who are honest enough. Jesus and Mary's order remains firm and faithful, while its detractors and enemies who attempt to divide it are doing Satan's work.

Honest enough?

Quote from: Bishop Fellay
I have never sought one [i.e., an agreement with Rome] myself, but I thought it my duty to examine the Roman proposal in 2011-2012.

Surely this is not an honest statement. If it were, it would render the letter of the 3 bishops completely idiotic, and, while die-hard supporters of Bishop Fellay may consider Bishop Williamson to be idiotic, I don't think even they would attribute idiocy to the other two bishops of the SSPX.

In fact, this statement of the bishop's is contrary to the known facts. While I do not doubt that, as of right now, Bishop Fellay has no plans to sign any agreement with Rome, it is abundantly clear to anyone with eyes to see that he has sought an agreement in the past. Furthermore, based on the recent articles I've recently read here on this forum from the SSPX suggesting that doctrinal agreement with Rome is not needed before a practical agreement is reached, it seems that the groundwork is being laid for an agreement sometime in the future.

Dont believe everything you read posted by american resistance internet trolls.
This is divide and conquer against the sspx.

Luker · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2014, 10:41:44 AM »

I missed this on the first reading, I find it interesting:

Le Rocher: Are these studies – and the publications[2] based on them- still up-to-date?

Bishop Fellay: By looking again at all the studies we have publish, we can show that these canonizations are not serious, even if there is still the famous problem of the infallibility that would be implied by a canonization. Know that this is a point that can still use work. On matters of Faith, the infallibility of the dogmas, there is no room for discussion. But as for the infallibility of canonizations, as they are not the primary but rather the secondary object of the infallibility, there is still room for discussion.

From what I have read that the SSPX has put out so far regarding the doubtful post Vatican II canonizations, this seems new. I have never heard it mentioned that the infallibility of canonizations as such was under dispute. The argument has been that the changes to the process have rendered it doubtful. Has anyone read anything from the SSPX suggesting this idea? My understanding of canonizations (limited as it may be) is that the majority/probable opinion among theologians is that they are infallible in virtue of the pope making a solemn declaration and binding the Church. Because of the nature of the liturgy and universal worship of the Church, she could not make a mistake in canonizing someone and having the Church over Mass for someone who could be in hell. What the minority opinion is and why they don't consider canonization infallible as such, I am not too sure about, I am certainly no theologian. But as I understand it the Church has never ruled on this definitively either way.