Author Topic: Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)  (Read 2517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ethelred

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1222
  • Reputation: +2266/-0
  • Gender: Male
Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
« on: October 17, 2012, 08:49:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Full transcript of Catholic News Service interview with Bishop Fellay, 11 May 2012.

    Thanks to all helpers! You know who you are.



    1st part of CNS-Interview with Bishop Fellay


    “Traditionalist leader talks about his movement, Rome”


    Transcript:

    00:22 SSPX versus Rome?

    The question is not the Society versus Rome. I think, if you see the whole thing like that, it’s wrong understanding, I definitely don‘t look at it this way. Since Paul VI, so it‘s not new, we may see on the council we have this apprehension, that there is something wrong in the Church. A movement, a strong movement which is going astray, which is no longer, let say, giving the Catholic line, but from people who are in position and so who give the impression it’s the Catholic church. Many people have an understanding of the council which is a wrong understanding. And now we have authorities in Rome who say it. We, I may say in the discussions, I think, we see that many things which we would  have condemned as being from the council are in fact not from the council, but the common understanding of it.


    01:25 Religious liberty

    Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited. It would, in our talks with Rome they clearly said that, to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one its religious -  religion - is false.


    02:04 Liberty in practice

    Conflict situations are not from today.  The church had to deal with them long time ago already. What she requests from the states and so on is not new. And so we have no problem with the act, let’s say, requesting this freedom for the Church and, let say, being in the Middle East, being now in the States and so on, it’s rather which principle is invoked to do it. We would argue that there might be another principle which will be more accurate to justify the action which was called before tolerance. We have to profess our faith, we have to show it, we are not supposed to hide it, but in certain circumstances just life tells us that we better bow down if there is a time of persecution for example, nobody is obliged to provoke the opponent or the persecutor.


    03:06 The ideal state

    Just in itself the best situation is when you have the whole society which is going the same way. It also helps to unity, to peace, to everything. And of course religion is a major part in the human heart and if you are one in the religion, it helps to have this peace and I may say, well, that’s the commandment of our Lord to his Church: We have to go to all nations and teach them what our Lord said. Now, when you are in a situation which is a mixed situation, which is, let say, the reality, I would say, well, that's not the ideal but that's the situation which you are.  And that's, let's say, where you have to do your job, your duty as a Christian. So you have to give this witness to the others, you must try to help them. We want everybody to have that wonderful happiness of heaven and trying to bring them to this knowledge.


    04:20 The Church and the Jews

    If you think of what happened to them during World War II you do consider, let’s say, the Christian position towards them as the cause of what happened to them which we claim that's wrong, it’s not true. Hitler was, he might have been baptised, but his behaviour, absolutely anti-Catholic. It was not a catholic behaviour which he followed by doing what he did, and I think it’s not fair to put the burden of what happened to them then on the Catholic Church. If you look, what Pius XII did for them, talk about 700.000 Jews would have been saved by the church, by Pius XII.. But when you see all the comments on the Jewish side about Catholicism, you see this antagonism, which does not come first from the Catholics, I don’t think so.


    05:28 The work of Pope Benedict

    Personally I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer, but once again it really appears, that the Holy Father wants it to happen now. The move of the Holy Father, because it really comes from him, is genuine. If this recognition happens, it’s thanks to him, definitely, and to him alone.

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #1 on: October 17, 2012, 08:49:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 2nd part of CNS-Interview with Bishop Fellay


    “Extras: The Society of St. Pius X”


    Transcript:

    00:12 Will there be an agreement?

    Maybe by nature I‘m optimistic. The thing is not yet done though. And we need, as I always said, we need some reasonable understanding that the proposed structure and conditions are workable. We are not going to do suicide there, that‘s very clear.


    00:49  Will the SSPX split?

    I cannot exclude that there might be a split. I hope it won’t, but for the time being it‘s really impossible to foresee clearly what, let’s say, the amount and how many and so on, it‘s impossible. It just shows that, yes, there are some difficulties inside, which is normal.


    01:22 A sign of contradiction

    If we see some discrepancies within the Society, definitely, there are also in the Catholic Church and let‘s say, when it goes about us, we begin to be like, I don‘t know, something like a sign of contradiction.


    01:49 Hermeneutic of continuity

    The Pope says that the…, he even said it recently, that the council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely. The problem might be in the application, that is: Is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with Tradition? But the principle we definitely do adhere to it.  The Church must remain within its Tradition and cannot get out of it, because the Church has not been founded by man, but by our Lord himself, we talk about the Divine constitution of the Church and the main rules who guide the Church are given by God himself and not by man. And this cannot be changed. ... The problem of what really means Hermeneutic of continuity or of a reform, there you need to go deeper in.


    03:07 Mutual Recognition

    Having to be (let’s say) recognized and recognize the others and so on it is a whole new situation, I mean, let say, it’s something like a new world. You need to have a whole mentality which needs to be adjusted, it does not mean that you change what you are but there is a change in the relation with the other.


    03:33 Relations with the FSSP and other traditional groups

    For the time being “of course” as they are the closest, they are also maybe those who, at least some of them, have had the harshest position towards us, and so that will mean that it will take some time to heal the wounds, but well, let’s hope that one day we’ll be all one soul and one heart.


    04:03 Defenders of the Faith?

    Every Catholic must keep his faith, profess it and sometimes defend it. Now of course usually we are used to see that outside; there is some problem inside right now, but, let’s say, we are not the only one and we say, it’s the Pope himself who does it, and we may say that’s his job and, well, if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it.


    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #2 on: October 17, 2012, 08:50:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 3rd part of CNS-Interview with Bishop Fellay


    “Extras Part 2: The Society of St. Pius X”


    Transcript:

    (Written text:)
    In 1970, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a bishop at Vatican II, founded a seminary in Écône, Switzerland.
    Écône quickly became known as the epicentre of protest against the Council.
    Now the Archbishop’s Traditional group may be close to reconciling with the Vatican.


    00:39
    (Bishop Fellay speaking)

    Personally I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer, but once again it really appears, that the Holy Father wants it to happen now. If this recognition happens, it's thanks to him, definitely, and to him alone.


    01:25
    (Some seminarians of Écône and Winona are speaking, also some professors of Écône.)


    04:37
    (Bishop Fellay speaking)

    We can certainly benefit from some – not just some – from the experience of the Church. The Church was not born today, and it has a century long experience in dealing with souls; even now, let’s say, you have very good people who can certainly be help there, so there's no doubt that we can also benefit from such integration – or – I don’t know which word to use there, but uh, getting closer, definitely yes.

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #3 on: October 17, 2012, 08:51:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sumary of the interview, as published by CNS on their website :
    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201931.htm



    Fellay-SSPX, 11 May 2012

    Traditionalist leader says group could divide over unity with Rome

    By Francis X. Rocca


    MENZINGEN, Switzerland (CNS) – The leader of a breakaway group of traditionalist Catholics spoke in unusually hopeful terms about a possible reconciliation with Rome, but acknowledged significant internal resistance to such a move, which he said might lead to the group splitting apart.

    Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, spoke to Catholic News Service May 11 at the society's headquarters in Switzerland about the latest events in more than two years of efforts at reconciliation with the Vatican.

    The society effectively broke with Rome in 1988, when its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained four bishops without the permission of Blessed John Paul II in a protest against modernizing changes that followed the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65.

    In April the society responded to a „doctrinal preamble“ stipulating the group's assent to certain church teachings, presumably including elements of the teaching of Vatican II, as a prerequisite for reconciliation. The Vatican has yet to respond, but the director of the Vatican press office initially described the latest position as a „step forward.“

    The society is hardly united behind its leader's position, however. In April, according to a letter which surfaced on the Internet May 10, the society's other three bishops warned Bishop Fellay that the Vatican's apparent offer to establish the group as a personal prelature – a status currently held only by Opus Dei – constituted a „trap,“ and urged him to say no.

    „There are some discrepancies in the society,“ Bishop Fellay told CNS. „I cannot exclude that there might be a split.“

    But the bishop defended his generally favorable stance toward the Vatican's offer against the objections of his peers.

    „I think that the move of the Holy Father – because it really comes from him – is genuine. There doesn't seem to be any trap,“ he said. „So we have to look into it very closely and if possible move ahead.“

    He cautioned, however, that the two sides still have not arrived at an agreement, and that unspecified guarantees from the Vatican are still pending. He said the guarantees are related to the society's traditional liturgical practices and teachings, among other areas.

    „The thing is not yet done,“ the bishop said. „We need some reasonable understanding that the proposed structure and conditions are workable. We are not going to do suicide there, that's very clear.“

    Bishop Fellay insisted the impetus for a resolution comes from Pope Benedict XVI.

    „Personally, I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer,“ he said, „but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now.“

    Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope's efforts to correct „progressive“ deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. „Very, very delicately – he tries not to break things – but tries also to put in some important corrections,“ the bishop said.

    Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition – a position which many in the society have vocally disputed – Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

    „I would hope so,“ he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

    „The pope says that... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,“ the bishop said. „The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?“

    Insisting that „we don't want to be aggressive, we don't want to be provocative,“ Bishop Fellay said the Society of St. Pius X has served as a „sign of contradiction“ during a period of increasing progressive influence in the church. He also allowed for the possibility that the group would continue to play such a role even after reconciliation with Rome.

    „People welcome us now, people will, and others won't,“ he said. „If we see some discrepancies within the society, definitely there are also (divisions) in the Catholic Church.“

    „But we are not alone“ in working to „defend the faith,“ the bishop said. „It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it.“

    END

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-7
    • Gender: Female
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #4 on: October 17, 2012, 12:01:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • 01:49 Hermeneutic of continuity

    The Pope says that the…, he even said it recently, that the council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely. The problem might be in the application, that is: Is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with Tradition? But the principle we definitely do adhere to it.  The Church must remain within its Tradition and cannot get out of it, because the Church has not been founded by man, but by our Lord himself, we talk about the Divine constitution of the Church and the main rules who guide the Church are given by God himself and not by man. And this cannot be changed. ... The problem of what really means Hermeneutic of continuity or of a reform, there you need to go deeper in.



    Would some kind and patient soul please explain this phrase, 'hermeneutic of continuity'?

    I have never been able to comprehend what it means, why it is said, what it is about.  It is like JP2's bizarre writings - incomprehensible and it short-circuits  my brain.

    Maybe an example in simple household analogy?  Bp. Felley's answer doesn't even make any sense at all; it's like they speak in code.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #5 on: October 17, 2012, 01:59:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Elizabeth



    01:49 Hermeneutic of continuity

    The Pope says that the…, he even said it recently, that the council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely. The problem might be in the application, that is: Is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with Tradition? But the principle we definitely do adhere to it.  The Church must remain within its Tradition and cannot get out of it, because the Church has not been founded by man, but by our Lord himself, we talk about the Divine constitution of the Church and the main rules who guide the Church are given by God himself and not by man. And this cannot be changed. ... The problem of what really means Hermeneutic of continuity or of a reform, there you need to go deeper in.



    Would some kind and patient soul please explain this phrase, 'hermeneutic of continuity'?

    I have never been able to comprehend what it means, why it is said, what it is about.  It is like JP2's bizarre writings - incomprehensible and it short-circuits  my brain.

    Maybe an example in simple household analogy?  Bp. Felley's answer doesn't even make any sense at all; it's like they speak in code.


    Bless you, dear Elizabeth!  

    You have the fortitude and humility to ask the burning question that so
    many are reluctant to ask.  When B16 pulled his hermeneutic of continuity
    out of his hat, the world was struck in silence.  But now, it seems to me,
    that not the entire world was so struck.  I appears rather likely that a
    select few, at least some of whom would include scholars of ancient
    Judaism, would have known right away that there is a harkening here in
    this phrase back to a time long ago, a time before Christ, to be specific.


    Have you ever heard of a synagogue named Temple Beth Hillel? I wouldn't
    be surprised, because there are a lot of them. Here's one in the San
    Francisco Bay area: http://tbhrichmond.org/

    There are many, but they have something in common: Hillel.  That would
    be a guy who lived in the years preceding the first time Christ came to
    earth.  Hillel was a Jewish scholar, a "famous religious leader" (Wikipedia
    article Hllel the Elder).

    Hillel apparently lived to be 120, and died when Christ was about 10 years
    old.

    One of his teachings was the "7 Hermeneutical Rules" of interpretation of
    Scripture.

    From one website
    http://virtualreligion.net/iho/sages.html

    101.    Hillel's Hermeneutics
    37    These are the seven rules Hillel the elder used when interpreting (Torah) before the benei Bathyra [=the leading scholars under Herod]:
    (1) "the light & the heavy" [qal wachomer: deduction a minori ad maius];
    (2) "similar concept" [gezeyrah shawah: analogy]
    (3) "principle traced from one text" [binyan ab mikatub echad: generalizing the particular]
    (4) "principle traced from two texts" [binyan ab mishne kethubim: generalizing what appears more than once]
    (5) "include & divide/divide & include" [mikelal uferat miferat ukelal: inference from general to particular]
    (6) "as deduced elsewhere" [kayotze bobemaqom acher: inference from one passage to another]
    (7) "word joined to subject' [dabar ha lamed inyano: conclusion from context].
         --- Babylonian Talmud (supplement), Aboth de R. Nathan A 37


    Now, I'm not saying it's useful to understand the particulars of Hillel's
    Hermeneutics, but rather the point arises, why would a Pope of the
    Catholic Church use a word that is so intimately connected with such a
    thing as this, and use it at such a time as this, and use it for such a
    purpose as this?

    Hillel lived during the years immediately before and even during the
    Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and Hillel never
    knew that it had happened: he did not recognize the time of his visitation.

    Hillel was a prominent religious leader, even well respected in his field to
    this day, 2000 years later, who used "hermeneutics" as a basis for giving
    current or relevant meaning to doctrines that had come before his time.




    Anyway, beyond all of that, when B16 says "hermeneutic of continuity"
    he is trying to put fancy words on a thing that is really not very fancy.
    What the Church taught before Vatican II is not what the Church is
    ostensibly teaching after Vatican II, and it is rather obvious to see that.
    I suspect you understand this very well.  But rather than deal with the
    obvious, B16 has chosen to DENY the obvious, and has instead made
    this proposition that

    A) The Church is always consistent in her doctrine,

    B) What the Church has always taught cannot be different from what
          the Church is presently teaching, and therefore,

    C) What the Church teaches after Vatican II is consistent with what the
          Church taught before Vatican II.

    And he uses the term "hermeneutic of continuity" to dress up this false
    doctrine in clothes that make it appear, superficially, to be sophisticated
    and erudite; not unlike Fr. Pfluger, who proclaims that he "would like to
    make this clear: let no one imagine that he can criticize authority with
    impunity."

    Source

    So I hope that helps explain what this "hermeneutic of continuity" is.




    Furthermore, on a philosophical level, if you want to dig a little deeper
    so as to get a firm grasp of what's up with this ****,  there is one more
    thing to know.

    B16 in practice denies the principle of non-contradiction.  He does not
    come out openly and SAY this, nor would he admit it in public.  He
    would have some "word whiskers" to dance around the question if he
    were to be asked, or, he would ignore the question.  What is the
    principle of non-contradiction?  In ancient Greece, there were some
    very wise and thoughtful men, called Greek Philosophers, who did
    some very organized and penetrating thought, focused on thought
    itself.  We are indebted to them for their natural sagacity.  They
    recognized that in order to maintain any truth and/or logic in one's
    thinking, one had to make a few axiomatic presumptions, or definitive
    statements. One of these was, is, and always will be (infers eternity)
    that a thing cannot both be and not be at one and the same time.

    Practically speaking, that means that something, that is "anything,"
    cannot be what it is, and at the same time NOT be what it is. Or, it
    is really even deeper than that, because it addresses existence in
    itself. Non-existence and existence are incompatible.  If your glass
    is empty, your glass is therefore not full.  If you are with your
    child, you are not without your child.  If your dress is red, your
    dress is not NOT red (like blue or white, or - shudder - orange!).

    Canon Gregorius Hesse put it very well, even though he died before
    B16 came up with this hermeneutic agenda.  Canon Hesse gave the
    example of a contractor, who hires two teams of painters to paint a
    large room, I guess it was like a banquet hall, for example.  And the
    contractor tells one team to "paint the room yellow," and he tells
    the other team to "paint the room blue." Then the contractor makes
    himself scarce, and the painters all show up on the job and what do
    you suppose happens?  The painters argue with each other, and not
    much painting gets done.  Such a contractor, in the real world, would
    not be in business for long.  But this is what we have going on in the
    Church.  New directives are being given with the only possible aim
    in mind being to instill confusion and discord amongst the faithful.

    And here, B16 is saying that what the Church teaches prior to Vatican
    II is consistent with what the Conciliar Church teaches in opposition
    to
    traditional doctrine.  And he does this entirely on the basis
    that he has authority, and therefore we must believe what he says.





    That's what the hermeneutic of continuity is.





    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline PAT317

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 339
    • Reputation: +398/-72
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #6 on: October 17, 2012, 02:02:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Elizabeth


    Would some kind and patient soul please explain this phrase, 'hermeneutic of continuity'?

    I have never been able to comprehend what it means, why it is said, what it is about.  It is like JP2's bizarre writings - incomprehensible and it short-circuits  my brain.

    Maybe an example in simple household analogy?  Bp. Felley's answer doesn't even make any sense at all; it's like they speak in code.


    You said it.  I don't think I could tackle it either.   But here is an attempt by John Vennari:

    Quote
    A Key to Pope Benedict XVI



    b16-assisifrancis-basilica
    Pope Benedict's pan-relgious Meeting at Assisi: October, 2011

    The Oath Against Modernism
    vs. the "Hermeneutic of Continuity”

    by John Vennari

    The term “Hermeneutic of Continuity” came into vogue with the ascension of Pope Benedict XVI.

    On December 22, 2005 in his speech to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict XVI laid out what would be the program of his pontificate. Usually a Pope will do this in his first encyclical, but informed commentators at the time observed that Pope Benedict appeared to lay out the program for his pontificate in this December 22 address, and not his first encyclical.

    In this speech, it is clear that the pivotal principle that would be the program for his pontificate is the Second Vatican Council.[1]

    However, says the Pope, there has been a problem with the Council. Too many in the Church, he laments, approach the Council through a “hermeneutic of rupture”; and a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” with the past. (“Hermeneutic” basically means, “interpretation”. Thus, Pope Benedict says, many Catholics have approached the Council with an interpretation of rupture with the past.)

    The proper way to approach the Council, he insists, is through a “hermeneutic of continuity”. His basic claim — and this has always been his claim as Cardinal Ratzinger — is that Vatican II did not constitute a rupture with Tradition, but a legitimate development of it. We can find this legitimate development if we approach the Council through a hermeneutic — an interpretation — of continuity.

    This gives the impression to many that Pope Benedict XVI plans a restoration of Tradition in the Church.

    But this is not the case. Yes, Pope Benedict issued the Motu Proprio freeing the Tridentine Mass. This was a matter of justice for which he deserves credit, and it is something we could have guessed he would do, even based on his statements as Cardinal Ratzinger.

    But the hermeneutic of continuity does not signal a return to Tradition. Rather, it is another attempt, first and foremost, I believe, to save Vatican II. (In fact, though the term is often used, Benedict never used the term "hermeneutic of continuity, but rather, he used the term, "hermeneutic of reform.")

    Vatican II is still his pivotal principle. The so-called “hermeneutic of continuity” approach will give us nothing more than a new synthesis between Tradition and Vatican II — a synthesis between Tradition and Modernism — which is not a legitimate synthesis.

    Novel Approach

    Initially I want to focus on just one aspect that tells us from the beginning that the “hermeneutic of continuity” approach does not signal a true restoration of Tradition. This is the term itself. Pope Benedict does not employ the Traditional terminology for the preservation of Tradition, but has effectively invented a new term: “hermeneutic of continuity”.

    This is because his approach to Tradition is at odds with what the Church taught for 2000 years.

    For example, Pope Benedict XVI never says that the answer to the crisis in the Church is to return the admonition of Pope Agatho who said “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[2]

    Pope Benedict never says that the answer to today’s ecclesiastical chaos is to return to the formula contained in the Oath Against Modernism, that the Catholic is bound to
    “... sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eademque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously.”[3]

    He cannot use terminology like this because it conflicts with the new teachings of Vatican II, with the new teachings concerning religious liberty and ecumenism. These new teachings are clearly “different from the one which the Church held previously.”[4]

    When Pope St. Pius X was battling to maintain Catholic truth and Tradition, he did not come up with his own original phrase in the Oath Against Modernism. The terminology he employed is the ancient terminology of the Church, found in the writings of the Fathers, and enshrined in infallible dogmatic definitions that a Catholic must believe for salvation.

    As far back as the 4th Century, St. Vincent of Lerins explained what constitutes the proper development of Catholic doctrine:

    “But perhaps some will say: Is there to be no progress of religion in the Church? There is, certainly, and very great ... But it must be a progress and not a change. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and in all times, increase and flourish in abundance; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one in the same sense, and one in the same judgment.”[5]

    St. Vincent of Lerin’s teaching on Tradition was dogmatically and infallibly enshrined in Vatican I. This demonstrates that the exact same teaching on Tradition was maintained in the Church for more than 1400 years. Vatican I teaches in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

    “Hence that meaning (sensus) of the sacred doctrine must always be retained which holy mother the Church has once declared, and we must never abandon that meaning under the appearance or in the name of a deeper understanding.”

    Vatican I’s Dei Filius goes on to say that any authentic development in the understanding of doctrine “must proceed in its own class, in the same dogma, with the same meaning and the same explanation.” This is the same basic wording of St. Vincent of Lerins, unchanged for over 1400 years.

    And this, as noted, was the wording Pope St. Pius X employed in his Oath Against Modernism, wherein the man taking the Oath swears before God to, “sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eademque sententia).”[6]

    Pope Benedict XVI never uses terminology like this. Even as Cardinal Ratzinger, he never employed such terminology. The sad fact remains that Pope Benedict XVI, and most of our modern Church leaders cannot even use traditional terminology when they claim they are trying to maintain Tradition, but come up with new phrases: “Reciprocal integration”[7] or “Hermeneutic of continuity”.

    The employment of this new phrase, along with his obvious commitment to the novel aspects of Vatican II such as ecumenism[8] and religious liberty,[9] tells us that as much as we would want it to be true, Pope Benedict XVI is not a Pope of Tradition. He will continue with the novel policies of Vatican II. It may not be in the same wildcat manner as his immediate predecessor. It may be a bit more subdued and refined, and perhaps, a bit more Traditional in appearance. Pope Benedict will even attempt more discipline in certain areas, specifically in liturgical matters, than ever did John Paul II.

    But in the end — as far as doctrine — it is still Vatican II’s new orientation that will dominate. What we are commanded in Vatican I and the Oath Against Modernism to believe the Catholic Faith “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as the Church always taught, will be neither mentioned nor reinforced.

    Thus, no matter how many times we hear the term “hermeneutic of continuity”, no matter how many times we are told that Vatican II did not constitute a rupture: the fact remains that Vatican II’s new approach to what is called ecumenism and religious liberty — and by extension, Pope Benedict XVI’s approach to what is called ecumenism and religious liberty[10] — is at odds with the traditional Magisterium of the centuries. Here we do not find continuity, but rupture.

    Thus, and I say this with respect, I will not be enthused about any report that Pope Benedict XVI wishes a true return to Tradition, until we hear him employ the terminology for Tradition used for 1500 years; until we hear him call for a return to Catholic Faith “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” of what the Church always taught.

    Excerpt of an edited transcript of a speech given in Green Bay, Wisconsin, June, 2008.


    Notes:
    1. Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmas Greetings, Thursday, December 22, 2005. Available on Vatican Webpage.
    2. Quoted from Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, #7.
    3. Oath Against Modernism, 1910. (emphasis added)
    4. For example, the French bishops made a formal statement in which they abandoned even the intention of fighting for the Social Kingship of Christ. The bishops of France plainly said in the Dagens Report in 1997: “Without hesitation, we accept, as Catholics, to take place in the present cultural and institutional context, which is especially characterized by the emergence of individualism and by the principle of secularity. We reject any nostalgia for times gone by when the principle of authority seemed to be an unquestionable fact. We do not dream of an impossible return to what used to be called Christendom.” —Quoted from Father Alain Lorins, DICI — 2008: September 27/October 8 edition.
    5. Quoted from “Ecclesiology and Ecumenism”, Part II, Father Edward F. Hanahoe, S.A., The American Ecclesiastical Review, November 1962, p. 328. (emphasis added)
    6. Dei Filius, Vatican I.
    7. The new concepts of “Reciprocal Integration” and “Enrichment of Faith” were key principles of Pope John Paul II. See Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part II, Volume 3, Father Johannes Dörmann, [Kansas City, Angelus Press, 2003], pp. 1-38.
    8. One of the many examples of Pope Benedict’s new ecumenical approach. On August 19, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI, he conducted an ecumenical meeting in Cologne, Germany. Here he said regarding ecumenism:“... this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity. ... To this end, dialogue has its own contribution to make.” This statement bears no continuity with what the Popes have taught for 2000 years, that the non-Catholic must convert to Christ’s one true Church for unity and salvation. Quote from. Apostolic Journey to Cologne, On the Occasion of the XX World Youth Day. Ecumenical Meeting, Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Cologne — Archbishop’s House: Friday, 19 August 2005. On Vatican webpage at: www.vatican.va/holy_ father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005 /august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_ 20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en .html [emphasis added]
    9. Father Yves Congar openly admitted Vatican II’s new doctrine of Religious Liberty is a rupture with the past. Congar said, “What is new in this teaching in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII … is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.” Quoted from Archbishop Lefebvre’s, I Accuse the Council (Angelus Press), p. 21.
    10. For more examples of Pope Benedict’s novel ecumenical approach, see: “Assisi 2012: Religious Indifferentism on Parade” and “Common Mission and ‘Significant Silence’” (on Pope Benedict’s approach to modern Judaism). (all at www.cfnews.org )








    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #7 on: October 17, 2012, 02:16:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0





  • The stupid ink dried................   :smash-pc:


    After all that,


    "The problem of what really means Hermeneutic of continuity or of a reform, there you need to go deeper in."


    It's a bad translation. What +Fellay would say here if he were actually fluent in
    English, like Bishop Williamson (which explains a lot why he's so jealous of H.E.!!)
    is,

    The problem of what is meant by, 'hermeneutic of continuity,' or what do we
    mean by, 'a reform,' would require a deeper explanation.

    But +Fellay does not want to give a deeper explanation.  He's already got
    himself stuck in the muck as it is, and the more he explains, the deeper he
    gets stuck...  another reason why he's jealous of +Williamson, because he
    would like to be able to explain things to the satisfaction of the faithful, okay?

    When you "go deeper in," and you don't lie through your teeth in the process,
    eventually you'll get to the point where the charade is exposed, the jig is
    up, the cat's out of the bag.  And then, no amount of Pfluger-phantasy is
    going to make a whit of difference. No amount of Nely-naybobs are going
    to help.




    It would then be a lot like Obama without a teleprompter....  Get it?





    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #8 on: October 17, 2012, 02:48:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks to PAT317 for the Vennari piece. Good stuff!

    I made a bit of a boo-boo in my last post, which is exposed in a close reading
    of Vennari's excerpt:



    The problem of what is meant by, 'hermeneutic of continuity,' or what do we
    mean by, 'a reform,' would require a deeper explanation.


    I should have said,


    The problem of what is meant by, 'hermeneutic of continuity,' or 'hermeneutic
    of reform,' would require a deeper explanation.


    I think the rest is still okay, though.  When I said, that he's "stuck in the muck,"
    an image that might help is a 4x4 stuck in the mud ..............




                             

    Or this..............


                             



    (Note: Any woman who can laugh at a time like this would make a great wife.)
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-7
    • Gender: Female
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #9 on: October 17, 2012, 09:28:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :sign-surrender:Thank you, dear Niel and PAT.  :sign-surrender:

    I think I finally get it.  Thanks for such detailed tutoring, it really helps.

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Transcript of CNS interview with Bishop Fellay (May 2012)
    « Reply #10 on: October 18, 2012, 02:17:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The "hermeneutic of continuity" is a twisted thinking and so confuses any sound thinking. So don't worry, Elizabeth. Please find below EC 134 where Bishop Williamson summed up Bishop Tissier's booklet about Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic thinking" (and see ECs 208 - 211 named Benedict's Thinking I - IV for Bishop Williamson's in-depth summary of Bishop Tissier's analysis of B16's wrong thinking). I coloured the key sentence in blue :
     


    EC 134, 6 February 2010

    Papal Error II

    Just coming out in English is the valuable 100-page treatise in French by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St Pius X on the doctrine of Pope Benedict XVI :  "The Faith imperilled by Reason".
    The title says it all. Bishop Tissier's thesis is that Benedict XVI allows human reasoning to adulterate the Catholic Faith.
    Let me paraphrase a paragraph from the Bishop's conclusion which goes to the heart of the matter :-

    » Benedict XVI frequently calls for a "hermeneutic of continuity", meaning an interpretation of Vatican II and of Catholic Tradition which shows that there is no break but continuity between them.
    After studying the Pope's teachings, I now realize that this "hermeneutic" goes further than I originally thought. It means not just a new reading of Faith and Reason, but a new birth of both, and it is of universal application. Firstly, each is to purify the other: Reason will stop Faith from sliding into intolerance, while Faith will heal Reason's blind independence. Secondly, each is to regenerate the other: Reason will enrich the Faith with the liberal values of Enlightenment thinking, while Faith, suitably re-expressed for modern times, will win a hearing from Reason. And this process is to be applied across the board to all religions and all ways of reasoning. Without any one system of values being imposed on everybody, those values which keep the world going will be strengthened.«

    Note here firstly how, on his own admission, Bishop Tissier originally under-estimated the breadth and depth of the Pope's vision. Catholics following Tradition know that the Conciliar reconciling of the Faith with modernity (especially the sentence that I have underlined above) is wrong, and is destroying the Church, but they do need to recognize that it has been thought out with intelligence, however misguided, and it is held with conviction. Benedict XVI believes profoundly both in the old way of believing and in the new way of thinking, and he is confident that by his own way of solving any apparent problems between them, all men can be brought together. This "solution" drives his Papacy.

    Alas, I cannot reconcile 2+2=4 with 2+2=5 by saying that four is "more or less than four and a half", while five is "more or less than four and a half", because four apples will remain obstinately four, while five oranges will persist in being five. Thus the true Faith may tolerate the person erring, but it cannot tolerate the error, while modern Reason may wish to see, but as long as it is modern it insists on putting its own eyes out, the eyes of the mind (Kant). At every turn Bishop Tissier demonstrates that the eternal Faith, revealed by God, cannot lie down with modern reasoning, fabricated by men, which is designed to exclude either God or at least his demands on men (Religious Liberty).

    Thank you, your Excellency!  For, however charming may be the Pope's prospect of "peace in our time", it is not charm but truth in charity that will get us to Heaven.

    Kyrie eleison.

    Bishop Richard Williamson
    London, England


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16