It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:16 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
 Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Australia 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Australia
Bishop Fellay gave his first post-GC Conference here yesterday.

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".

I'll try and write up some more detailed comments when I get time.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Here are some posts I have published today on Ignis Ardens.

John Lane wrote:
Berengaria wrote:
If during these recent/ongoing talks Bishop Fellay was making statements like this one, and the one cited by SS a few posts above, instead of saying that the Pope of Assisi III is defending the Faith, and that the religious liberty taught by the Council is "very very limited" I don't think people would have such a problem with talking with Rome.


I agree.

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.

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.

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.

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 recents events.

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.


John Lane wrote:
Seraphim wrote:
I am prepared to accept what you say as true.
However, it remains incontestable that Bishop Fellay has diverged from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre in striving for a practical agreement at the expense of doctrinal unity.



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: viewtopic.php?f=13&p=12842#p12842

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 circumstances 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.

Seraphim wrote:
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, why the traditional Benedictines, Dominicans, and the other 3 SSPX bishops (in their letter) believe 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.

Seraphim wrote:
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. 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.

Seraphim wrote:
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 Ecumenism, 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.”

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.


John Lane wrote:
To answer the various questions about how this came about:

Prayers were answered - mine and others that I requested for this purpose.

I am, as I've said many times, a long-term SSPX parishioner. I've met Bishop Fellay several times over the years, and had private interviews with him before. I asked for some time, and was given it. The interview was scheduled for 30 minutes. We ended up speaking for an hour and a half, or perhaps two hours. I am a sedevacantist, and he knows that. I feel that this puts me at a serious disadvantage, as you can imagine, when approaching these men, but they are all very kind and they treat me as a fellow Catholic.

Ours is a small parish. On this occasion the bishop was staying for the whole Sunday and flying out Monday, so he had more time than he might otherwise have had.

There was a luncheon after the conference and everybody had the opportunity to speak with him, and he was very candid with all. Others could have requested private interviews and a couple did, and all were granted.

It was an afterthought yesterday to ask if he would mind if I repeated some of what we discussed the previous day.

I've often said that the men of the SSPX are very approachable and anybody can speak freely with them. It is obviously more difficult in large, busy, mass centres. We are fortunate in this respect.


For those who prayed for this, not knowing what the intention was, thank you again.

John Lane wrote:
With respect to the suggestion of expulsions, I asked the bishop about that and his comment was that he was hoping that the ones who had got excited would now calm down. His comments were very clear on this question – he is hoping that the situation will now return to peace and fraternal unity.

My comment: Obviously the situation is not entirely in his hands. If people want to leave, they’ll leave, one way or another.


John Lane wrote:

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.

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.


John Lane wrote:
When Bishop Fellay mentioned that he hopes the excitement dies down, there was no hint of anger or threat in his demeanour. He was answering my question, and he answered frankly.

My impression was that the whole thing has saddened him but he is now hopeful for the future.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Dear John, did you ask the Bishop why he didn't resolve the inaccuracies at the time when he knew that many people were confused, annoyed and, disappointed by his seemingly changed position?


Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:01 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Hi Lance,

The DICI interview was intended to correct the false impressions inferred from the CNS interview.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
More posts:

John Lane wrote:
Binx wrote:
Other than the general statement about learning communication lessons, did the Bishop express any specific judgment about the relationship between CNS and Rome? In other words, did you get the sense that he sees CNS as a kind of mouthpiece for the Rome with whom a practical agreement remains possible, or did he seem to think of CNS as a separate entity (and therefore responsible for their own hatchet jobs) from the Rome with whom a practical agreement remains possible?

No, he made no comment about any of this, except when he began his explanation of the matter he stated that CNS is the news service of the American bishops, so his audience was Americans, etc.

Binx wrote:
John Lane wrote:
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.

He called this an ad hominem argument? Really? Sounds rather like he intended an argument from authority, and the authority he used was V2, chosen for the audience he perceived himself to be addressing. As a rhetorical device, V2-as-authority might have worked for his imagined audience, but such a weak appeal always gets the orator in trouble, in one way or another, with the more serious among the eavesdroppers.

Well, V2-as-authority for a specific audience is an argument ad hominem, in the sense he meant it, which was “If V2 is your authority – it isn’t mine – then you should recognise a much more limited scope for religious liberty than you do.”

This is not an unusual approach, and popes have done it, on this very subject. Here’s Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:
The "liberty of the Church as an association of men within civil society" is an argument ad hominem directed at powers which attack her public law on that point, so that she is reduced to expect from them in the present nothing but the common law right to existence of all legitimate associations, those, that is to say, that are in conformity with the natural law. [7] But it is blasphemy and apostasy to turn that argument into an absolute and fundamental principle of the public law of the Church. The popes themselves have formally condemned the attitude of states even nominally Catholic which reduce the Church to the common law status.
[7] An example of the use of the argument ad hominem is given by Pius XI writing to the ordinaries of China on 15 June 1926: "Everybody knows, and it is confirmed by the whole of history, that the Church accommodates herself to the constitutions and laws proper to each nation...and demands nothing more for the preachers of the Gospel and the faithful than the common law, security and liberty." It should be noted that Pius XI is not demanding the common law for the Church as such and in general, but for the missionaries and the Christians in a particular country with as yet no knowledge of Christ.


Binx wrote:
Did he say, though, whether he is convinced that it is incorrect?

I think he was absolutely clear that he rejects the text and the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae. Wait until you see or hear his conference. There can be no doubt.


John Lane wrote:
Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. wrote:
There is still the question of the April 17, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble response sent by Bishop Fellay to Rome that places VII in a positive light.

We haven’t seen the text. We’ve seen a report of a verbal reading of an extract.

The Bishop explained in the conference in great detail what he put in that text. He included big chunks of Vatican I on the nature of the magisterium, for example. No wonder “rome” rejected it.

I’m not going to reply to the various reactions to the information I have conveyed. I happened to be given an opportunity to discuss these matters with Bishop Fellay, and I have reported some of what he said, in response to questions. If there are more, and I have the relevant answers from him, I’ll post them.

One other thing I think will be of general interest, is what comes next? Nothing of any substance. There’s no deal. However there will be one further “contact” with “rome” as has already been announced via DICI (the official reply to the June 13 text). Bishop Fellay called Di Noia and asked to whom he is now supposed to respond (I presume because of Di Noia’s appointment) and was told to reply to him, Di Noia, and to bring the note directly to him in Rome. So Bishop Fellay is going to Rome again, to deliver the reply (i.e. the refusal of this latest text). It’s the end of the process.

My comment: I expect this too will be mischaracterised by certain parties, but time will tell with all these things.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Just tidying up. More of the posts from IA, for the record (since they have such a penchant for Archiving and deleting things they don't agree with):

Quote:
Fr Roberts,

You have expended considerable effort and many words refuting something that wasn't intended.

The words "hatchet job" mean in this context "cut and paste" - NOT hostility to Bishop Fellay by CNS. The implication of hostility to Bishop Fellay never occurred to me when speaking with him or when reporting his comments here.

CNS wasn't hostile to Bishop Fellay, but it did take his words and cut them up and reassemble them so that some things he said are not clear. It's obvious what they did - they are Novus Ordo people, with a Novus Ordo mentality, etc.

Anyway, if you go back and re-read the post in which the words "hatchet job" appear I think what I was saying was clear.

John Lane wrote:
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.

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.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:11 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Quote:
martel @ Aug 7 2012, 06:32 PM wrote:
MiserereMeiDeus @ Aug 7 2012, 05:24 PM wrote:
Does anyone beside me have trouble with the concept of a sedevacantist accordista and apologist for Bishop Fellay? The very notion makes my mind seize up, much like trying to perform the doublethink gymnastics necessary to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition.


Hmmmm, yes. It does seem rather odd. Given that, ostensibly, he doesn't have a dog in the race, he seems to have used up the digital equivalent of half a rain forest chattering about it.


Martel,

I am a long-term SSPX parishioner. My association with them goes back to 1988, when I attended my first traditional Mass, offered by an SSPX priest in New Zealand.

I'm totally against a deal. I discussed this with the Bishop also.

I don't recognise Benedict as pope.

Put aside your prejudices concerning the term "sedevacantist" and understand that various SSPX priests share my view, including some who would surprise you, and that Archbishop Lefebvre openly speculated that he might adopt it himself. "Sedevacantist" does not mean "anti-SSPX".

Now, as for having a dog in the fight, it's a good point. There are a number of people who have been very active here on IA and elsewhere who certainly don't and never will assist at Holy Mass offered by a Fraternity priest. They have no dog in this fight.

And "anti-SSPX" is another interesting concept to ponder. There are a number of people here and elsewhere who are fomenting a split, for reasons which seem good to them. To recognise that there is no deal does not suit their agenda, which is why they were saying even a few days ago that a deal had already been done and was being kept secret, etc.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Quote:
Columba @ Aug 8 2012, 06:07 AM wrote:
Bishop Fellay: "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."

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/201 ... -have.html

The SSPX held discussions with the Vatican, not the Conciliarists. "We" can only refer to Menzingen-SSPX as having learned in discussions that the Council itself is not so bad after all. Even if by stretch of the imagination this was just "speaking to Conciliarists in their own terms," why would +Fellay undermine the SSPX position to give Vatican II his seal of approval?


Columba,

I gave the Bishop's explanation of this on page 2 of this thread. It's a distinct point from the one about Dignitatis Humanae. Here it is again.

John Lane @ Aug 7 2012, 01:46 AM wrote:

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 Ecumenism, 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.”

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.



You can easily see in this an example of Bishop Fellay's lack of ease in presenting complex points in English. If I've understood him correctly, I'd re-write this key text, "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" as follows:

"In the discussions we learned that the Vatican has shifted position on the doctrines and reforms of Vatican II. They used to present them all as coming from the Council. Now, they distinguish, and admit that some of the things presented as from the Council are actually from a common understanding of it, but are not actually found in it."

Something like that.

Have a look at the work of John Lamont, a key figure in this new Conciliarist movement to reinterpret the Council in less erroneous terms. It's very clear that what Bishop Fellay observed from the discussions with "rome" is exactly the same as Lamont's procedure.

From my point of view this whole movement represents a new danger, since it is absolutely an attempt to rescue Vatican II (it's the "hermeneutic of continuity"), but it's also a significant backdown on the part of those who have maintained that the doctrines of reforms of the Conciliar revolt were all authorised, imposed, and mandated with the highest authority of the Catholic Church, at Vatican II. From their perspective this new movement represents a dangerous weakening of their position, and causes them a great deal of alarm.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:18 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Quote:
counterrevolutionary @ Aug 9 2012, 04:44 AM wrote:
Is it easy enough to see that +Fellay thought he had not asked for the lifting of excommunications when he had done it few months before?

Is it easy enough to see that +Fellay thought that the Summorum pontificum was an answer from Heaven when it humiliates the Tridentine Mass and compares it with the new mass? If so, why does he always cut off some words from the document when he quotes it? By cutting such words, he changes the text's meaning, softening it to make it appear something favorable to Tradition.

Is it easy enough to see that +Fellay thought that the prerequisites had been met when he knew exactly what had been asked in the crusades?
...

If the answer to these questions is yes, then nobody in history has ever lied... except those who say +Fellay has.


No.

He wasn't saying that SP was a gift of heaven for equating the true Mass with the N.O. He was saying that the statement that the true Mass had never been abrogated was a gift of heaven. Nor is it dishonest to focus on that point to the exclusion of the rest of the sentence that contains it. The Mass was either abrogated or it wasn't. It cannot have been abrogated and also not abrogated. It was one or the other. The qualification the Modernists added, implying that its non-abrogation was purely as an "extraordinary" rite, isn't logical. Abrogation isn't a modification of a law, it's the complete cancellation of it.

So insofar as you regard the Vatican as having authority (I don't so regard it), you have in this text an official interpretation of the law, stating that the promulgation of the New Mass did not abrogate the promulgation of the true Mass.

The same official text asserts that the promulgation of the New Mass rendered the true Mass an extraordinary rite, and for men who reject whatever conflicts with Tradition, this interpretation is to be rejected.

As for the excommunications, once again, think about the point a little. What was the problem with those invalid, unlawful, excommunications? Surely, only that the excommunications were a lie that acted as an obstacle to the faithful who might otherwise avail themselves of access to the services of the SSPX. In that light, asking for them to be declared null was purely for the sake of others. So whether they were declared null from the beginning, or merely lifted, the main point of the request was met. The obstacle was removed.

These are not my opinions. Every time I see something like SP I think "To deceive, if possible, even the Elect". Talk about serpentine! I certainly wouldn't have celebrated it, and didn't.

But if what I have suggested, from a sedeplenist and pragmatic perspective, is reasonable, then what Bishop Fellay said wasn't "lying" or anything like it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bishop Fellay Conference - Aug. 5, Perth, Western Austra
Here is the Conference that Bishop Fellay gave in Adelaide, South Australia, 8th of August, 2012.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/Fellay/Fe ... elaide.mp3

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:17 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.