It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:28 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
 DICI Interview of Fellay 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 8
New post DICI Interview of Fellay
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... -sspx.html

I was alarmed by several things in this interview, things which I thought were rather glaring and carried overtones which are incompatible with the traditional understanding of the Church:

Quote:
Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. This new awareness can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve.


While he isn't wrong to say that the Church cannot be reduced to any one given council, nevertheless, it almost seems like he is downplaying the importance of the doctrinal issues at stake - especially given that he says they must "strive to resolve more far-reaching problems" - what could be more far reaching than the Church teaching heresy as legitimate doctrine? Also, speaking of "reading between the lines," downplaying the import of any council of the Church I see as dangerous to the Faith. If the councils are one of the primary means of the Magisterium to instruct the faithful of the Church's official teaching, is it not dangerous to denigrate any council's importance? Does it not set a precedent, or give grounds for rejecting or calling into question the legitimacy of any other council of the Church, on the grounds that the Church is "much larger" than any one given council?

Quote:
One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality. It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors. Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat.

At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now. Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic. But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?


Keeping in mind that I received my B.A. from St. Marys college and went through their apologetics classes at a time in my life where such information was bound to make an impression, being a new "revert" to tradition, I was saddened to see him equate the modern heresies and apostasies of our time with other turmoil within the Church, putting the plethora of heresies on a level with selling indulgences, clerical marriage, and simony - if I learned the vast difference between heresy on the part of a prelate, v. sin on the part of a prelate, and that in Apologetics 101, from SSPX priests, shouldn't he know it?

- at least, that is what my initial thought was until I began the second paragraph in the quote, wherein it is obvious that, contrary to traditional teaching, he considers the Arian heretic bishops to yet have been in the Church and teaching on Her behalf. While this line of thinking is a natural progression of their current understanding of how a heretic can still hold authority in the Church, it further proves the inherent danger of their theological position, the underlying premise that Church is in fact defectible and can teach error in her official capacity. Naturally, their complete disregard for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium plays right into this premise.

The problem is that the SSPX totes itself as being traditional, so even though these ideas are novel, and absolutely not traditional, we have a vast majority of SSPXers who read this interview and don't see anything wrong with it. I see that as a big, big issue for tradition in general. If the majority of traditionalists aren't in fact traditional, where does that leave tradition from the perspective of the Novus Ordo -what exactly is the SSPX hoping the Novus Ordo will convert to?


Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:22 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: DICI Interview of Fellay
Yes, all good points, Trent. What a mess!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:31 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.