It is currently Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
 Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…" 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
The arrival of a new pope

The arrival of a new pope can be rather like resetting our odometers to zero. Especially with a pope who distinguishes himself from his predecessors by his way of acting, speaking, and intervening and makes quite a contrast. This can cause people to forget the preceding pontificate, and that is what has happened somewhat. At least at the level of certain conservative or reforming lines marked out by Pope Benedict XVI. It is certain that the first interventions of the pope have caused a lot of haziness and even almost a contradiction, at any rate a contrast in relation to those reforming lines.

One example: the Franciscans of the Immaculate

In their spirituality they follow the guidelines of Father Maximilian Kolbe.

This is very interesting, because Maximilian Kolbe desires a combat for the Immaculata, a combat by the Immaculata, the victory of God over the enemies of God—we really can use that term—namely the Freemasons. It is very interesting to see that. This combat against the world, against the spirit of the world made them close to us, almost by nature, one could say, because to enlist in a combat against the world implies the Cross somewhere. That implies the eternal principles of the Church: what is called the Christian spirit. This Christian spirit is expressed magnificently in the old Mass, in the Tridentine Mass. So that when Benedict XVI published his Motu Proprio, which once again made the Mass widely available, that congregation decided in their Chapter, in other words a decision by the whole congregation, to return to the old Mass, and really to do so across the board, realizing that they would have a lot of problems since they have parishes, but that nevertheless these problems were not insurmountable. A few of them also began to pose certain questions about the Council.
[/url]

As a result, some malcontents, a handful if you consider the number of them (there are around 300 priests and brothers in all), maybe a dozen protested to Rome, saying “They are trying to impose the old Mass on us, they are attacking the Council.” This provoked a very strong reaction on the part of Rome, already during the pontificate of Benedict XVI—it is necessary to make that clear. Nevertheless, the conclusions, the disciplinary measures were taken under Pope Francis. These include, among others, the prohibition against celebrating the old Mass for all the members, with a few exceptions and permissions, possibly, here or there…. This is directly contrary to the Motu Proprio, which spoke about a right, that the priests had the right to celebrate the old Mass and therefore there was no need for permission, either from the ordinary or even from the Holy See. Therefore that is quite shocking; obviously this is a signal.

A new approach by the Church

“We’re closing the parenthesis.” This is the slogan used by several progressives at the coming of Pope Francis. I think that in any case, for those who are called progressives, it was what they wanted. In other words, after the pontificate of Benedict XVI, they wanted to consign to oblivion his pontificate and its initiatives which had the intention of reestablishing, for better or for worse, the situation by a few corrections—is it possible to say “restoration?” In part, at any rate, there was at least a desire to get the Church out of the disaster in which she finds herself.

The new pope arrives with different positions, attacking almost everything. Everyone understood: Benedict XVI is forgotten! It was useless to say: “But no! This is the same combat, Benedict and Francis, the same combat!” Obviously, the attitude is not the same at all. The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same! This idea of introducing reforms that are even more extensive than anything that has been done thus far. In any case, you don’t get the impression that they will just be cosmetic, these reforms of Pope Francis!

Then how will this affect the Church? It is very difficult to say.

A climate of confusion

The coming of a new pope makes people forget (what preceded him), as though starting over from zero, with a lot of surprises, a lot of offenses, too, because by his words he has irritated almost everyone, not just us, but all conservatives in general. On questions of morality, he has taken astonishing positions, for example that question about homosexuals: “Who am I to judge?” “Well, the pope, for one thing!” He is the supreme judge here on earth. Therefore if there is someone who can judge, who must judge and set forth God’s law to the world, he is certainly the one! What the pope thinks personally does not interest us; what we expect from him is that he be the voice of Christ and therefore the voice of God, who repeats to us what God has said! And God did not say, “Who am I to judge?” He really said something else: you see, the condemnations that we find in the writings of Saint Paul, and not just those of the Old Testament—think of Sodom and Gomorrah—are very explicit. Saint Paul and the Apocalypse speak very forcefully against that whole unnatural crowd. Therefore expressions like that, even if they have been “explained correctly” later on, give the impression that on many topics everything and the opposite of everything has been said. This creates a climate of confusion; people are thrown off balance: they necessarily expect clarity about morals, and even more about the faith; the two are connected. Faith and morals are the two points that the Church teaches and where infallibility can be invoked, and all at once we see a pope making hazy statements…

It goes much farther than that: during an interview with the Jesuits, the pope attacks those who desire clarity. Unreal! He does not use the word clarity; he uses the word certitude, those who want doctrinal security. Obviously people want that! In dealing with the words of God Himself, Our Lord, who says that not even one iota should be abandoned, it is better to be precise!

A less credible pope

It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins. All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders! But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements.

I think that one of the most unfortunate things about these statements is that they have spoiled his credibility; they have taken away much of the credibility of the Supreme Pontiff, so that when he has to speak about important things, now or in the future, those statements will be put at the same level as the others. People will say: “He is trying to please everyone: one move to the left, one move to the right.” I hope I am wrong, but you do get the impression that this will be one of the traits of this pontificate.

The higher a position of authority one is raised to, the more careful one must be about what one says, and this is especially true about the words of the pope. I think that he talks too much. Consequently, his words become muddled, vulgar, perhaps in the deeper sense of the word. Non decet: it is not fitting; this is not how a pope ought to act.

You can no longer tell what is a private opinion and what is doctrine… The mix-ups occur immediately. “Oh, but this is the pope speaking!” Now the pope is not a private person. Of course he can speak as a private theologian, but just the same it is the pope speaking! And the journals will not say, “This is the pope’s private opinion,” but rather “The pope is the one who says that; the Church thinks this way.”

The pope, a man of action

I do not think that I could dare say that I can already make a synthesis. I see many disparate elements, I see a man of action. This is the primacy of action, no doubt about that; this is not a man of doctrine. An Argentine said to me: “You Europeans will have a lot of difficulty understanding his personality, because Pope Francis is not a man of doctrine, he is a man of action, of praxis. He is an extremely pragmatic man, very close to the ground.” You see that in his sermons; he is close to the people and that is perhaps what makes him very popular, because what he says touches everyone. He also irritates everyone a little, but he is very close to the ground. There is not much theory. You see this clearly: this is action, pure and simple.

This is what you see. But how will that affect the Church? What will be the consequences for the life of the Church as a whole? Is this quite simply a voice crying out in the desert, which will have no effect at all, or on the contrary will one part of the Church, the progressive part, benefit from it? You can tell that they would like to take advantage of it.

What is interesting, even now—in this analysis of the situation of the Church—is to see that clumsy words are pronounced, some draw conclusions from them, and after that comes a “clarification” (an attempt to reestablish the doctrine). There have already been one or two remarkable clarifications—interventions by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who restates quite clearly and firmly the points unsettled by the Pope. It is almost as though the Prefect of the CDF had to censure or correct… it is a bit awkward! Finally, the progressives, at a certain point, will change their tune and say that this is not what they were expecting. Meanwhile, the pope is giving them a hope, a false hope….

A modernist pope?

I used the word “modernist;” I think that it was not understood by everybody. Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist. There are lines, for example, the evolutionary line, which is precisely connected with action. When the pope says that he wants a haziness in doctrine, when doubt is introduced, and not just haziness, but doubt, going so far as to say that even the great leaders of the faith, like Moses, allowed room for doubt…. I know of only one doubt of Moses: the time when he doubted and struck the rock! Because of that the Good Lord punished him and he was not able to enter the Promised Land. Well then! I do not think that this doubt is to Moses’s credit; the rest of the time he was rather forceful in his assertions… without a doubt.

It is really surprising, this idea that there must be doubts about everything; it is very peculiar! I will not say that this is reminiscent of Descartes, but… it creates an atmosphere. And what is really dangerous is that they leave it at that in the newspapers and the media… He is to some extent the darling of the media, he is well regarded, they praise him, they showcase him, but that does not get to the bottom of the matter.


An unchanged situation

This is an atmosphere that has come alongside the real situation of the Church, but the situation itself has not changed. We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same. The basic lines remain the same. On the surface there are variations: one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme! The basic assertions: we find them, for example, about the Council. The Council is a reinterpretation of the Gospel in light of contemporary or modern civilization—the pope has used both terms.

I think that we should begin by very seriously asking for a definition of what contemporary, modern civilization is. For us and for average mortals, it is quite simply the rejection of God; it is “the death of God”. It is Nietzsche, it is the Frankfurt School, it is an almost universal rebellion against God. We see this almost everywhere. We see it in the case of the European Union which in its Constitution refuses to acknowledge its Christian roots. We see it in everything that the media propagate, in literature, philosophy, art: everything tends toward nihilism, to the affirmation of man without God, and even in rebellion against God.

Then how can we reread the Gospel in that light? It is quite simply not possible; that is squaring the circle! We agree with the definition just given and from it we draw consequences that are radically different from those of Pope Francis, who goes so far as to show, to expose the continuation of his thought by saying: “Look at the fine fruits, the marvelous fruits of the Council: look at the liturgical reform!” Obviously that sends a chill down our spine! Since the liturgical reform was described by his immediate predecessor as the cause of the crisis of the Church, it is difficult to see and to understand how all of a sudden it should be described as one of the finest fruits of the Council! It certainly is a fruit of the Council, but if this is a fine fruit, then what is beautiful and good or bad? It makes your head spin!

For the moment, nothing is being done to heal the Church

For the moment, nothing has been done to remedy the situation of deviance, of decadence in the Church, absolutely nothing, no measure that affects the whole Church. We might mention the Encyclical on the faith; I don’t think that we can consider that as an effective measure. Certainly not. That does not touch, that does not heal the sick Mystical Body, sick to the point of death, the dying Church. What are they doing to get out of this situation? Nothing, after all; until now, nothing. Words, a few passing words that go in one ear and out the other—someone might say that I am being too harsh; I don’t know, but practically speaking where are the measures being taken or announced to correct the aim? There aren’t any. Quite simply.

The Church however has promises of eternal life

Our Lord said it very clearly: the gates of hell will not prevail against her. You would love, on the basis of these very words, you would love to turn to Our Lord and say to Him: “But what are You doing?! Look, You are letting things happen that seem to go against Your promise!” In other words, we are bit surprised by what is happening. Here I am talking about the history of the Church. These words, I am convinced of it, have been for most theologians the source of statements about the impossibility of seeing in the Church precisely what we are seeing now. Considering that it is absolutely impossible, because of this promise by Our Lord. Well, then, we will not deny Our Lord’s promises; we will try to say how these promises, which are infallible, are still possible in a situation that seems contrary to them. It seems to us that this time the gates of hell have made a first-class entry into the Church. I think that it is necessary to be careful; we must not equivocate. Especially with such statements, prophetic statements by our Lord, it is necessary to keep the basic meaning. These are very forceful analogies; there is a reality being asserted here that is undeniable: the gates of hell will not prevail. One point, and that’s the whole thing. But this does not mean that the Church is not going to suffer. Well, then, to what point can this suffering go? And here there is room for interpretation; we are obliged to extend a bit further what we used to think.

When we think of Saint Paul, who speaks about the Son of perdition, who will have others adore him as God, it is therefore not just a military or, one might say, a civil Antichrist; this is a religious person, a person who has people adore him, who claims acts of religion for himself. And the abomination of desolation, is that connected with this? I think so. Therefore this means that there are, alongside this announcement of the promises of the indefectibility of the Church, the announcements of a terrible time for the Church, in which people will ask themselves questions. In fact, this very question: but then what about this indefectibility, these promises of Our Lord? The Blessed Virgin… the famous sayings at La Salette, which are repeated almost word for word by Leon XIII—these are not revelations, this is the Church and, we might say, the Church itself in an act: Leo XIII composes an exorcism, that famous exorcism of Leo XIII, but later on they deleted the most solemn expression of that exorcism, which announces that Satan will reign and set up his throne in Rome. Quite simply. Therefore the headquarters of the Church will suddenly find itself the headquarters of the Antichrist. These are the very words of the Blessed Virgin: “Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.” These are the words of La Salette. Just like: “Rome will lose the faith,” “the eclipse of the Church”; thus very forceful words contrasting with the promise. This does not mean that the promise is null and void; obviously it remains, but it does not rule out a moment of such suffering for the Church that one could consider it as an apparent death.

Passion of Christ, Passion of the Church

I think that we have arrived at that point. The question remains: to what extent will the Good Lord ask His Mystical Body to accompany, to imitate what His physical body had to endure, which was even unto death. Will it go to that point, or will it stop short of it? We all hope that it stops short. I think—it would not be the first time—that the Good Lord will intervene to reestablish things, at the moment when everyone thinks: This time it’s over. I think that this will be one of the proofs of the divine origin of the Church. At the moment when all human efforts are over, exhausted, in other words, when everything is finished, that is precisely the moment when He will act. I think. And then it will be an extraordinary manifestation, indeed, of the fact that this Church is the only one that is really divine.

The attitude of the faithful

First of all, they must keep the faith. This is the primary message, we can say, of Saint Paul; it was also the message for the times of persecution: be firm, state [in Latin], hold on, remain standing, stand firm in the faith. Keeping the faith cannot be merely theoretical. There is such a thing as what I would call “theoretical” faith: the faith of someone who is capable of reciting the Creed, he has learned his catechism, he knows it, he is capable of repeating it, and of course this sort of faith is the beginning; you have to have it, or else you do not have the faith. But this faith does not yet lead to heaven. This is what you have to understand. The faith that Scripture speaks about is the faith that is—to use the technical expression—informed by charity. Saint Paul was speaking about this relation between Faith and Charity when he said to the Corinthians: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,” (which is no small thing, since a faith that can move mountains is not something you see every day!) “and have not charity, I am nothing…. I am only a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal….”

It is not enough to make great professions of faith; it is not enough to attack or condemn errors; many think that they have fulfilled their duty as Christians when they have done this, but that is an error. I am not saying that you should not do it; it is one part, but the faith that Saint Paul and Sacred Scripture speak about is informed faith, in other words, faith imbued with charity. Charity is what gives form to faith. Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor. Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth. Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.

The duty of state

What the faithful must do is their duty in their state in life. To keep the faith, a faith properly imbued with charity, profoundly anchored in charity, which will enable them to avoid discouragement, bitter zeal and spite, and instead to experience joy, the Christian joy that consists of knowing that God loves us so much that He is ready to live with us, to live in us through grace. This sheds light on everything that happens, and gives a joy that makes us forget problems and puts them in their place—problems that certainly can be serious. But what are they in comparison with the Heaven that is won precisely through these trials? These trials are prepared, arranged by the Good Lord, not so as to make us fall but so as to make us win. God goes so far as to live in us, as Saint Paul says: “And I live, now not I: but Christ liveth in me!” That is so beautiful! The Christian is a tabernacle of the Holy Trinity, a temple of God, a living temple!

The role of the Society of Saint Pius X

Its primary concern is truly what keeps the Church alive: the Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is really the concrete, everyday application of the merits of Our Lord Jesus Christ, everything that he earned, merited on the Cross, which is truly the totality of graces for all human beings, from the first ones, Adam and Eve, down to those at the end of the world. All graces were merited by Our Lord on the Cross. The Mass is the perpetuation, the renewal, the representation of this sacrifice; on the altar there is a sacrifice identical to the one of the Cross, which each and every day places at the disposal of Christians (by extension one could say at the disposition of mankind) the merits of Our Lord, His satisfaction, His reparation, so as to obtain forgiveness for all the sins, that ocean of sins committed every day, and also to obtain the graces that we need. The Mass really is the pump that distributes throughout the Mystical Body the graces merited on the Cross. This is why we can say that it is the heart that distributes by means of the blood everything that the cells of the body need. That is what the Mass is about: it is the heart. By taking care of this heart, we take care of the whole life of the Church.

Restoring the Church through the Mass

If we want a restoration of the Church, and certainly we do want it, that is where we must go. To the source, and the source is the Mass. Not just any liturgy, but rather, I mean to say, an extremely holy liturgy. One that is holy to an unimaginable degree. One that has an extraordinary sanctity that was truly forged by the Holy Ghost over the centuries, composed by the holy popes themselves, and therefore having an extraordinary depth. There is absolutely no comparison between the New Mass and that Mass. They really are two different worlds and, I was about to say, Christians who are in the least sensitive to grace realize it very quickly. Very quickly. Alas, today, we observe that many people do not even see it any more! But for me it is obvious that the restoration of the Church must start there. Therefore that is why I am profoundly indebted to Pope Benedict XVI for having reinstated the Mass. That was of capital importance. It is of capital importance.

Training priests

The Society promotes the Mass, wants this Mass, and it also promotes the man who says it, and there is no other who can, but the priest alone. Therefore this is truly the very purpose of the Society: the priesthood, the priest, to form priests, to help priests, without any limitation, no limitations, no one is going to be ruled out, no! It is the priest as Our Lord intended him. By reminding him precisely of the treasures that many ignore today. It is tragic.

Rediscovering the Christian spirit

The Mass is even more important. The Mass is what will impart the faith; this is what will nourish the faith. Obviously, if someone celebrates the Mass without faith, there is a big problem. So it is not a matter of causing antagonisms; it is a matter of truly uniting what is supposed to be united. But I think that already with these two elements we have enormous resources for the survival of the Church, quite frankly. Let’s say that everyone does see that the Church has been attacked at various levels; yet the most profound problem, I am convinced, is the loss of the Christian spirit. Christians have tried to become like the world. They said so the whole time, it was the purpose of the Council to accommodate itself to the modern world. Well, no: that is not possible! We live in this world, therefore we use a lot of things from it, which remain concrete historical circumstances that pass away. The foundation that remains, is attachment to the Good Lord, service rendered to the Good Lord which includes, of course, faith, grace, and this Christian spirit. You want to go to heaven? You should go to heaven, and to do so it is necessary to avoid sin and to do good. Both. As long as we don’t return to those basics, the Church will continue, we might say, to be battered by a lethal virus, which is the virus of the modern world, precisely of modern civilization.

The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

“In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” This is an absolute statement; nothing about it is conditioned by what happened before. And it is truly a statement that elicits hope and establishes it; it is a rock. Obviously, since it seems right that this triumph is connected with the consecration (of Russia), we are asking for the consecration; that is altogether normal. How long will we have to wait to see it done as it was requested, or will the Good Lord, once again, be content with less? We don’t know. What we do know is that in the end there will be this triumph. And therefore this is a certitude. We will not speak about a certitude of faith, because this is not a question of faith; it is a word given by the Blessed Virgin, and so we know very well what her word is worth! That is all.



__________________________



[Source: English translation and transcript, video and [url=http://www.dici.org/documents/entretien-avec-mgr-bernard-fellay-menzingen-novembre-2013/]French original version provided by DICI.]

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:04 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Alan, I think this section is much more interesting:

Alan Aversa wrote:
That does not touch, that does not heal the sick Mystical Body, sick to the point of death, the dying Church. What are they doing to get out of this situation? Nothing, after all; until now, nothing. Words, a few passing words that go in one ear and out the other—someone might say that I am being too harsh; I don’t know, but practically speaking where are the measures being taken or announced to correct the aim? There aren’t any. Quite simply.

The Church however has promises of eternal life

Our Lord said it very clearly: the gates of hell will not prevail against her. You would love, on the basis of these very words, you would love to turn to Our Lord and say to Him: “But what are You doing?! Look, You are letting things happen that seem to go against Your promise!” In other words, we are bit surprised by what is happening. Here I am talking about the history of the Church. These words, I am convinced of it, have been for most theologians the source of statements about the impossibility of seeing in the Church precisely what we are seeing now. Considering that it is absolutely impossible, because of this promise by Our Lord. Well, then, we will not deny Our Lord’s promises; we will try to say how these promises, which are infallible, are still possible in a situation that seems contrary to them. It seems to us that this time the gates of hell have made a first-class entry into the Church. I think that it is necessary to be careful; we must not equivocate. Especially with such statements, prophetic statements by our Lord, it is necessary to keep the basic meaning. These are very forceful analogies; there is a reality being asserted here that is undeniable: the gates of hell will not prevail. One point, and that’s the whole thing. But this does not mean that the Church is not going to suffer. Well, then, to what point can this suffering go? And here there is room for interpretation; we are obliged to extend a bit further what we used to think.

When we think of Saint Paul, who speaks about the Son of perdition, who will have others adore him as God, it is therefore not just a military or, one might say, a civil Antichrist; this is a religious person, a person who has people adore him, who claims acts of religion for himself. And the abomination of desolation, is that connected with this? I think so. Therefore this means that there are, alongside this announcement of the promises of the indefectibility of the Church, the announcements of a terrible time for the Church, in which people will ask themselves questions. In fact, this very question: but then what about this indefectibility, these promises of Our Lord? The Blessed Virgin… the famous sayings at La Salette, which are repeated almost word for word by Leo XIII—these are not revelations, this is the Church and, we might say, the Church itself in an act: Leo XIII composes an exorcism, that famous exorcism of Leo XIII, but later on they deleted the most solemn expression of that exorcism, which announces that Satan will reign and set up his throne in Rome. Quite simply. Therefore the headquarters of the Church will suddenly find itself the headquarters of the Antichrist. These are the very words of the Blessed Virgin: “Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.” These are the words of La Salette. Just like: “Rome will lose the faith,” “the eclipse of the Church”; thus very forceful words contrasting with the promise. This does not mean that the promise is null and void; obviously it remains, but it does not rule out a moment of such suffering for the Church that one could consider it as an apparent death.

Passion of Christ, Passion of the Church

I think that we have arrived at that point. The question remains: to what extent will the Good Lord ask His Mystical Body to accompany, to imitate what His physical body had to endure, which was even unto death. Will it go to that point, or will it stop short of it? We all hope that it stops short. I think—it would not be the first time—that the Good Lord will intervene to reestablish things, at the moment when everyone thinks: This time it’s over. I think that this will be one of the proofs of the divine origin of the Church. At the moment when all human efforts are over, exhausted, in other words, when everything is finished, that is precisely the moment when He will act. I think. And then it will be an extraordinary manifestation, indeed, of the fact that this Church is the only one that is really divine.



Those are my own views, almost word for word. He didn't get them from me, either (I presume he doesn't read The Four Marks!). I suppose they are the views more or less of many traditional Catholics, sede and non.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
John Lane wrote:
Alan, I think this section is much more interesting:
Yes, the Modernist section is really just a restatement of his position of mentevacantism.
John Lane wrote:
Those are my own views, almost word for word. He didn't get them from me, either (I presume he doesn't read The Four Marks!). I suppose they are the views more or less of many traditional Catholics, sede and non.
Yes, Bp. Fellay frequently emphasizes that the Church is going through her passion.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:16 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Alan Aversa wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Alan, I think this section is much more interesting:
Yes, the Modernist section is really just a restatement of his position of mentevacantism.


That term was coined by Fr. Cekada to describe Bishop Williamson's view of the matter. I really don't think it applies to Bishop Fellay's position. I know his mind, I think, and I would summarise it as follows. "Sedevacantism is not acceptable, so somehow these men have been popes, or at least, we must think so until the Church judges (after the fact)." His ideas on heretics and the possession of offices do not appear to differ from the classical lines of Bellarmine et al. He simply cannot admit that sede vacante is the situation. He has never, as far as I have noticed, even hinted at the views of Williamson. He is too simple, in the good sense, for that.

Alan Aversa wrote:
Yes, Bp. Fellay frequently emphasizes that the Church is going through her passion.


Recently, yes, but I don't think this is a long-standing practice. I think you'll find that he has arrived at this point.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:10 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
John despite whatever Fr. Cekada has coined, I happen to agree with Alan on this. +Williamson does not at the very least, have to re-interpret everything he says in public because everyone is misunderstanding him all the "time." Just think of the other time when he said that the *ews are the enemies of the Church, it just seriously gets old... How many times do you have to realize that you are being recorded and that words have consequences? Why does he have to say sorry for every single good statement he actually makes! +Fellay has a double tongue and I have to say that the resistance is completely justified the longer this happens.

As someone that has really listened to pretty much everything that +Fellay has said. What he is saying is ipso facto the same as +Williamson, just with a different twist. +Williamson will explain things more to the level of the common man which is why some call him a simpleton, but this is precisely why people love him. He is able to explain more complex topics in a manner that the average Catholic can understand the point. I would say its a gift, and +Fellay is quite the opposite now. He makes things that are pretty straightforward difficult to understand... Only confuses you more then you already were since the start of his argument/discourse. Its good to have theology and have all those fancy terms like transubstantiation, but they are real things that can be understood by everyone easily if they just had someone translate it in more plain english. +Fellay does not use theology for its true intended purpose, he abuses it so that he can have plausible deniability at every level. So he intends to test the waters with his words, and if it has an unintended effect then he will say it is everyone else's fault for understanding him in plain english!

He believes that the modern "popes" have simply lost their mind because of their love of modern philosophy as such we cannot hold them accountable to being formally heretical. He will even quote +Lefebvre and say that they are "savouring of heresy" etc... However it is this false distinction that Gregory Hesse S.T.D. makes about act and potency which if applied to every single thing we say this makes the external forum useless for making judgements. So Hesse defends formally heretical statements by saying that they are heretical absolutely, but only in potency and not act. Hesse actually holds the best form of mentevacantism which actually attempts to deal with the problem of heresy in general. +Fellay and +Williamson will keep their cardboard Pope despite anything that might happen in reality. To them it matters little what they do, they will simply tell you to pray for him and be quiet. Which is good advice, I pray for them not as the Vicars of Christ, but for their conversion to the Catholic faith big difference. You have to be really blind to excuse the stuff that this apostate is saying seriously, the greatest gymnastics in the mind possible to make them look in a positive light.

+Fellay is a mentevacantist who is much worse then +Williamson, because at least with +Williamson we can understand what he says. With +Fellay it depends on which side of the bed he wakes up on. I was confirmed by him and he has changed in the past decade quite a lot. Oremus pro eum +Fellay et +Williamson.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
+Fellay does not use theology for its true intended purpose
Yes, theology is both speculative and practical. The Modernists think it's just practical, and they accuse the Scholastics for thinking it's purely speculative (which the Scholastics know it isn't)!

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
+Williamson does not at the very least, have to re-interpret everything he says in public because everyone is misunderstanding him all the "time." ... So he intends to test the waters with his words, and if it has an unintended effect then he will say it is everyone else's fault for understanding him in plain english!


This is a man for whom English is his third or fourth language, and who very evidently does not speak it comfortably and easily, but rather struggles to choose the right words and to construct proper grammar. His enemies, clever and determined, constantly parse his words and accuse him, as you have here quite openly, of having an evil will and a double tongue. This says a lot more about you and Bishop Fellay's other critics than it does about him!

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
the resistance is completely justified the longer this happens.


What is "the resistance"? As far as I have observed, it is a few priests and laymen running about accusing Bishop Fellay of being a crypto Modernist and getting people not to go to Mass regularly. I see evils aplenty in this - sins of the tongue, disturbed consciences, anger, suspicion, hatred, and fewer attendances at Holy Mass. So the Devil is satisfied. What good can it possibly do? Even if what is being said were all true, which it plainly isn't, it's all just talk - except for the bit where people stop going to Mass. So "the resistance" is a gaggle of old ladies talking themselves out of going to Mass, as far as I can see. Oh, and praising themselves for doing so!

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
He is able to explain more complex topics in a manner that the average Catholic can understand the point. I would say its a gift, and +Fellay is quite the opposite now. He makes things that are pretty straightforward difficult to understand...


Just read the above interview, and tell me it's confusing. It's not confusing at all. It's a very straightforward text. The confusion comes from the fact that Fr. Cekada has leaped upon the question which interests us a great deal, which is that Bergoglio is really a Modernist, and (surprise!) has found a way to arrive at saying exactly the same things about the SSPX that he always says.

Bishop Fellay said that Bergoglio is a Modernist and some - Fr. Cekada was probably one of them - said well, a Modernist is a heretic and not a Catholic, and therefore he ain't pope. Bishop Fellay isn't a sede, so he clarifies his remark by saying that he has not made the judgement that the man is fully a Modernist, but that he acts like one. He is really just repeating the line they have always put, which is that it isn't a matter for us to judge and we leave it to the Church in the future, in the mean time even if we ponder the mysterious state of the Church we must get on with our duties and save our souls. There's actually nothing really very remarkable or interesting in any of this, except for those who hoped (naively) that Bishop Fellay was turning sede.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:
He believes that the modern "popes" have simply lost their mind because of their love of modern philosophy as such we cannot hold them accountable to being formally heretical.


Quote him to that effect. That's Williamson's theory. I think Fellay's is much simpler. He thinks that their minds are corrupted by false philosophy and this has seriously damaged their faith, so that they may well be heretics and not Catholics, but he isn't going to form that judgement. He reoils from that judgement, and he simply won't make it. I think that's all there really is to it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
John listen to the interview! John I am not criticizing him for anything other then the fact that he is Superior General of the SSPX, the biggest organized group still keeping the faith in tact. I am criticizing him on theological matters that he is talking about this is fair game (this is part of the intellectual and accepted tradition of the Church), particularly his very own comments from his own mouth... The faith is more important then +Fellay or the SSPX, and as such as a lay person I have the ability to be able to speak up when it is necessary either in public or private. No one can just merely accuse me of going out for a witch hunt, are my premises true yes or no. Everything that +Fellay has been saying only confirms that what I have said is true, he has repeatedly either through the SSPX or himself have had to step back from comments he has made for going too far. That is the beauty of our modern age anything you say is stuck and 99.9999% people will not have the time nor the interest to search a little further to see any follow up comments.

He has said this in French, in English, in Spanish and many other languages. How can one say that we are misunderstanding him? Even he has acknowledged that he said this, so it is not our fault for taking him at his words. John this is not a problem of translation, I can agree that some other things he said can possibly be errors in translation, but not everything. Why would you hold a conference in which EVERYONE is looking up to what you are saying and then say that you were misunderstood?

Sure you might argue that we are human and anyone one of us can misspeak, fair enough. No one is denying that to +Fellay, the difference is that there is a dialectic of pleasing both sides, to deny this is to be blind and idealistic. So you have a soft talk (liberal principles) and then a hard talk (to please those who still believe that there is such a thing as formal heresy) so that other SSPX priest can say, "You see the SSPX has not changed!" This is nothing but a fantasy, the SSPX has changed dramatically some like the friendlier attitude and changes, which is fine if it is based on truth and charity. Doctrinally the SSPX is different and tending towards a dangerous end, slowly but surely (it never hurts the warn the faithful to keep an eye). Our Lord said to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing and this can never be an Un-Catholic attitude that we can ever have. Whether or not at this time it applies absolutely to +Fellay is up to debate, I lean towards the fact that he is confused but well intentioned which only makes him more dangerous. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, to be on the lookout for the enemy. Many things would have never happened if good men would have been more cautious in their dealings with suspects of modernism/heresy. No one wakes up one morning and says, "today I will be modernist!" It just happens gradually where enough principles change in someone where they are effectively anti-Catholic, or have a spirit that erodes the Catholic faith.

Those who are leaning away from the neo-SSPX position towards a more hardline +Lefebvre line or Sedevacantism are precisely these "old ladies" in the resistance. Nothing wrong with that and you should welcome it if they are doing it with the right intentions and not a Novatianist schismatic spirit it goes without saying.

He talks about the Vicar of Christ as "talking too much" simply amazing... By any standards this is scandalous and offensive to pious ears. I think I am being more reverent then he is, if that can be any brownie points on my side :shock:.

The resistance are those SSPX members that for the good of their souls have remained detached from the neo-SSPX from their doctrinal stance just like Sedevacantist who attend a SSPX mass do, no big difference. I agree that it is SINFUL to not attend the mass of the SSPX because they "are compromised" and it is stupid. This is a problem that was very quickly resolved by Sedevacantist, they will come around soon enough once they sit down and think hard on what they are saying. I am not arguing against that and I have never even argued for one minute anywhere that the Resistance priest should be praised for telling the faithful to stay away from SSPX mass centers... In case you are not aware John many in the resistance are becoming Sedevacantists so they are a whole lot closer then you think they are to the truth that will save them, especially in our perilous times, where the very air we breathe is heretical. The same goes all over the place where Resistance priest preach many of their faithful they complain are becoming Sedevacantists (Fr. Thouvenout and other SSPX priest are accusing the resistance of this). So would you advocate to have a more neo-SSPX style of preaching and have them join the FSSP? With the exception of one person I know who recently changed, all my personal close friends who are following their vocation are joining the FSSP/Indult seminaries/monasteries. I never understood that until more recently, how is it that people can come into tradition through the SSPX and come out Indult? Consistently... This might not be true in other places, but from experience all of them are completely behind +Fellay's politicking with the Vatican as the way to go. This is because the position of the SSPX is pretty much becoming undistinguishable from that of the FSSP the lines are starting to blur, sadly. +Fellay understands this, he has said it, he refers to these as the "friends of the SSPX." +Fellay understands that it is only a minority of people that would really make a fuss about going back with Rome. We know this only because he has said this, so don't say I am speculating here. Just listen to his discourses, sermons and conferences. Of course in the atmosphere we have now, he has to be more careful and thank God. However, just think how close we were... The gravitational pull towards the Vatican MUST never be underestimated at the individual and large scale level. You are fortunate that you are set in your principles John, but many are not quite so certain why they hold their own positions. They mostly take it on the authority of other people, and if asked to explain they would give you a blank stare. This is true on all traditional sides of the Catholic resistance that are against the Conciliarist Church.

A double tongue is the man who consistently says things with two meanings... +Fellay has already granted that what I am saying is true, he knows that what he has been saying has been completely the opposite of "clarity" which is why constantly they need to revise everything he says. Whenever you say the "*ews are the enemies of the Church" and you have to mince your words consistently. Go back to +Fellays own sermons and writings, including that very interview we just watched! He constantly says what he expects of the Vicar of Christ "clarity", well how about we expect the same thing from the Superior General of the SSPX. Many people say, "Prove what you are saying!" Well we give our proof, and then you will accuse us of committing sins of the tongue! As if I just woke up and wanted to defame him. Never mind that he is stepping on the realm of theology, defending a modernist after calling him a modernist... How much more proof do you need? The interview, the doctrinal declaration, speeches etc... Are we going to have to resort to the argument of name me one "heresy" he has said. Someone does not need to be explicit about heresy to be criticized in a very specific way. This is how fraternal correction can happen, obviously I am just a little nobody and trust me if I had access to +Fellay I would tell him with all due charity and respect to be given to a Bishop.

I never said he was bad willed, I am saying he is a liberal which is worse. A liberal is someone who wants to play it nice to both sides, and in the end one side takes over. Being a liberal does not = bad will, you can be good willed and still be liberal. He is on dangerous ground, now is he a committed liberal? I don't think so, it just depends on which day you talk to him... I will let the reader decide whatever it is that +Fellay is currently on, I just care about those who are being led astray towards Conciliar Rome. +Fellay is by far the best Bishop that there is outside of the Sedevacantist Bishops and whichever true Bishops are left in the Conciliar Church. I don't have any ill will or hatred for the man that confirmed me in whom I have trusted for many years as a spiritual guide. It is precisely because I love the man that I can be able to be truthful about his unfortunate double talk. I am not the only one that saw that, it was John Vennari and everyone who is rigorist in the SSPX that posted in their front pages/blogs/websites the quote of +Fellay. This is precisely why +Fellay was trying to undo the damage that he perceived he did to the SSPX PR to the Vatican. Its called plausible deniability John, and Bergoglio is a master of doing this. It is unfortunate that one of our own is starting to do this either knowingly or unknowingly matters little to me. I have many times have had the best of intentions, but nevertheless good intentions lead to Hell. How often I have defiled my soul with mortal sin because of the best of my intentions, not having avoided the occasions of sin. Its important to understand that your words have an effect on others!

Quote:
Quote him to that effect.


I promise I will get back to you on this John, I need to go back and find my original sources. This means I have to go and look at some dusty Angelus magazines. Don't think I am dodging this question, my time is very limited so it might take me a little be patient, I am making some big claims and I agree it requires proof. The thought of the four Bishops does not greatly differ much on the whole mentevacantist issue. Just because Bishop Fellay does not speak as openly as Bishop Williamson on these issues does not mean that he greatly differs from him on the matter. Both of them will say that what he says objectively speaking is material heresy. No one even disputes this point.

Now John in order to have a sane discussion we must both define what it is that each of us respectably believe that +Fellay's position is. This is what is being disputed instead of going of on tangent's it is important to discuss this. So if you can briefly give me your educated opinion on what you have heard +Fellay's theory on the state of the mind of the Conciliar "Popes." Why is it that he would say he is a material heretic, but not formally one. Would be interested in knowing your thoughts John, that is of course if you care to share it with the rest of us. I am not trying to be the Grand Inquisitor here just pointing out matters that are strictly theological. +Fellay's best of intentions I cannot judge and it matters little to my argument, I am talking objectively here John. I know you mean well, but I am not committing sins against the tongue here. We are talking strictly matters theological, not rumours but things that he has said publicly. Since it is already public and well known, then we can be able to talk about it. If it was a private conversation I heard or something like that then I would agree with you. If I am wrong, then please show me where you think I was fostering hate towards +Fellay. If anyone read my previous message and got that sort of vibe/feeling call it what you like, then I sincerely apologize for having led you into a spirit of strife. I hope that you can see I am focusing on the faith and not the persona or charisma of +Fellay, if sometimes it is necessary to talk about him it will be in the context of his theological statements towards the papacy/crisis of the Church.

Fr. Cekada was correct on many points regarding Mentevacantism, despite the derogatory name he coined. This is the official position of the SSPX and the difference between +Williamson and +Fellay on this matter is so minute that I don't think it can even constitute a distinction. He made valid points that hold, he talks about the concept of Putative Popes. This is the "if he is your Pope, then obey him." This principle is Catholic, and if it is not can you please show us why it is wrong. This was precisely what was practised during the Great Western Schism. Now the only distinction that Fr. Cekada needs to make is that during the G.W.S. all of the anti-Popes/true Pope were Catholic so that the canonist when talking about this principle were certainly talking about a different case scenario then the one we currently face. Which are non-Catholic putative Popes for sedeplenists, and this is the distinction that I believe you very rightly make against Fr. Cekada and I would agree with you on that point.

I know Fr. Cyprian O.S.B., Fr. Albert O.P., French Capuchins, Bishop Mallerais and many others that hold this position and so many other good priest in the SSPX that hold an exact similar position (MV'ism). Father Peter Scott also comes to mind and many others that I have read over the years and priest that I have taught me over the years. SSPX priestly conferences, spiritual conferences and doctrinal talks all pretty much teach the same thing (MV'ism). I know because it was precisely the position I have held for well over a decade and it is not like I completely misunderstood them all for that long! I never found it derogatory, it just merely describes the position nothing can be wrong with that, of course I never called myself a Mentevacantist :lol:. Despite whatever you might say John it would be unfair to say that this is strictly "Anglican" theology of +Williamson, but something more broad among the SSPX that has been taught for decades in SSPX'ish circles. You haven't pulled any soft punches on +Williamson in this forum either, so just pointing out that to you. I think you meant well and I never criticized you for it, because we are talking about the precious light of faith which we both dearly care for. How else can you explain why the SSPX always stops to the point of never calling them formal heretics. They will blast, bombard the Conciliarist give a tough talk and game, but they will always stop short of that step of calling them actually heretical, not just "apparently" or "it seems" or "savouring", but actual heresy. The only other option I can think of is sedeprivationism... Got to go, I will post later my quotes on +Fellay. Hope that helped a little.

+Pax+

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Fellay really doesn't know what he's talking about. He says Bergoglio isn't a modernist, but then says this:

Bishop Fellay wrote:
“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins. All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders! But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."


Is this not exactly what St Pius X warned us against in Pascendi no. 18?

St Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, no 18 wrote:
“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist."


He says he's not a modernist, but then gives describes him exactly as St. Pius X describes modernists!

He juxtaposes Bergoglio and Ratzinger, quietly complaining about the differences between the two (this is on the heels of his quiet praise of Summorum Pontificum and its positive effect on the Franciscan Immaculata) and says:

Quote:
Obviously, the attitude [of Francis] is not the same [as the attitude of Benedict]. The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same!


He then contradicts this by saying that these men all say the same thing, just in different ways!

Quote:
“We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same. The basic lines remain the same. On the surface there are variations: one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme! The basic assertions: we find them, for example, about the Council. The Council is a reinterpretation of the Gospel in light of contemporary or modern civilization—the pope has used both terms."


This whole interview is a joke, if for no other reason than that it appears to simply be a sloppy exercise in thinking out loud that someone decided to publish.


Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:36 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Jorge,

I am confident that I have expressed the true view of Bishop Fellay, which is that he simply will not judge that any of these men are not Catholics and therefore not popes. He doesn't dipute Bellarmine, as some do; he doesn't develop theories about bad philosophy making the mind incapable of heresy (!) as Williamson does. He simply does not take the step that we have taken, and I think that this, ultimately, is because the Archbishop didn't.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:51 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Mithrandylan wrote:
He then contradicts this by saying that these men all say the same thing, just in different ways!


That's not a contradiction. He says where they differ, then he points out that their differences are really surface ones. No problem with that.

Mithrandylan wrote:
This whole interview is a joke, if for no other reason than that it appears to simply be a sloppy exercise in thinking out loud that someone decided to publish.


Yes, he's thinking out loud, I think that's exactly right. That's an honest man. He ums and ahs and goes back over the same ground, definitely the signs of an honest man who is concerned to get to the truth. Contrast this with the man who speaks without interruption, easily pouring forth his words, and especially when those words tend to condemn others. You can guess one or two men who fit that description. That behaviour is the sign of a man with far less concern for the truth, with a less delicate conscience.

I observed a commercial court action recently and noticed exactly the same thing. The (very junior) judge actually remarked that one witness's evidence was concise, and contrasted that favourably with the vague and wandering style of the other. Well, the reality was that the "concise" witness was the less honest of the two. He simply wanted to win. The other witness, a man I know very well, was hesitant precisely because he is careful with the truth. It reminded me of the contrast in styles between Fellay and his loudest critics. For those in Australia, compare Tony Abbott with Kevin Rudd. It's precisely the same difference in style, with I believe the same cause. Obama and Tony Blair are the glib, unthinking, smooth types too, like Rudd. Bishop Fellay's hesitancy when dealing with thorny problems is a very healthy sign.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
John Lane wrote:
He [Bishop Fellay] thinks that their minds are corrupted by false philosophy and this has seriously damaged their faith, so that they may well be heretics and not Catholics, but he isn't going to form that judgement. He recoils from that judgement, and he simply won't make it. I think that's all there really is to it.


I agree that this reflects the opinion of Bishop Fellay and that, while it appears he often misspeaks, he has not fundamentally changed his views over the past few years (I really knew nothing of him prior to around 2005, so I won't speak to his views prior to that time).

But what bothers me about him is his absolute condemnation of the sedevacantist thesis as if, although he says there are corruptions in the Conciliar popes' minds and that he "simply won't make" the judgment that they are heretics, those who see their "mental corruption" as clear indications of their heresy and loss of office are, in his views, outside the Church because they are schismatics. I am not sure whether Bishop Williamson also condemns the sedevacantists but I have read where he has advised against attending their chapels.

I don't have a particular reference to which I can point but he did say this very clearly at a conference (from prepared remarks, so he was not struggling to find the right words) I attended about three or four years ago. It was at this conference that I began changing my views on the Society and I ultimately decided that the SSPX was to be my last resort when considering which chapel to attend when I had options, which, Thanks be to God, I do.


Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:17 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
TKGS I agree the thinking that he has had the same message as that of 2005, this is when he observably really started changing significantly. +Williamson and others including myself notice that this change was really happening at around the year 2000 when "Cardinal" De Catrillon Hoyos during the Chartres pilgrimage invited the four Bishops to dinner, it goes without saying who said no. I used to push this stuff under the rug and I used to wonder, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt like a million times. However, it is blindness not to start noticing a trend. It was during this time that he started publicly saying nicer things about Rome, and started changing his mindset. He did this very gradually publically, remember Bishop Fellay actually thinks before he talks and he generally stays away from answering questions that are disputed because in his opinion and in the opinion of many SSPX priest they lead to fruitless discussions. Then they wonder why the faithful are so lost! It is precisely these fruitless discussions that help them grasp deep within their mind as to exactly why we are not the indult etc... I used to ignore these topics myself following along like a blind sheep the SSPX in their modus operandi, but I realized that by avoiding these topics with my friends they all left and joined indult seminaries/monasteries... People will gravitate towards Rome UNLESS they understand clearly why it is so wrong to do so and a soft sspx message will only convince them more of going back with Rome, because if you do not have grievous reasons to stay away then it is only pride that keeps you from obeying your lawful pastors.

So if you have not heard of +Fellay or kept up with every single sermon/writing since 1998 and forward (even before that) then it will be difficult for you to see what has changed. For those of us who have relied heavily on the SSPX for their spiritual guidance it is a significant difference. Just think of it, what if the next claimant would have been a more clever Ratzinger? You think someone like myself would have ever been slapped so hard in the face as with Bergoglio? The SSPX would have easily gravitated towards a more clever Ratzinger hands down, but now they are forced because Bergoglio is so anti-tradition that he just can't help himself. Its in his DNA structure, you can't really blame him after being programmed like that for so long, not a cell in his body is Catholic. Every statement he makes has to be understood in the light of ecumenism and then you will seriously be able to decode what gobbledygook comes out of his mouth.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 am
Posts: 438
Location: Tucson, Arizona
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Mithrandylan wrote:
Fellay really doesn't know what he's talking about. He says Bergoglio isn't a modernist, but then says this:

Bishop Fellay wrote:
“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins. All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders! But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."


Is this not exactly what St Pius X warned us against in Pascendi no. 18?

St Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, no 18 wrote:
“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist."


He says he's not a modernist, but then gives describes him exactly as St. Pius X describes modernists!
I noticed this, too.

_________________
«The Essence & Topicality of Thomism»: http://ar.gy/5AaP
by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
e-Book: bit.ly/1iDkMAw

Modernism: modernism. us.to
blog: sententiaedeo.blogspot. com
Aristotelian Thomism: scholastic. us.to


Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:10 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Alan Aversa wrote:
Mithrandylan wrote:
Fellay really doesn't know what he's talking about. He says Bergoglio isn't a modernist, but then says this:

Bishop Fellay wrote:
“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins. All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders! But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."


Is this not exactly what St Pius X warned us against in Pascendi no. 18?

St Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, no 18 wrote:
“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist."


He says he's not a modernist, but then gives describes him exactly as St. Pius X describes modernists!
I noticed this, too.


Alan and Mith,

I don't want to provide more grist for the fanatical Resistance people to mill, so I won't quote him, but I asked Bishop Fellay what he meant by this clarification and he told me that his point was that Francis is not a man of doctrine, but a man of action. He desires a freedom of action so he keeps his doctrinal statements to a minimum and keeps them loose. The contrast with the classical Modernists is that they were theorists, men of words and books. It's true that they mixed their theories up so as to make it difficult to put them into a coherent whole (which is what Pius X did for them in Pascendi - they appeared ungrateful to him! :) ) but they did actually pour forth reams of written material. This is very different to Bergoglio, who has written precisely one book, which of course he co-wrote (with a Rabbi!).

Here is what he said in the interview:
Quote:
I used the word “modernist;” I think that it was not understood by everybody. Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist. There are lines, for example, the evolutionary line, which is precisely connected with action. When the pope says that he wants a haziness in doctrine, when doubt is introduced, and not just haziness, but doubt, going so far as to say that even the great leaders of the faith, like Moses, allowed room for doubt…. I know of only one doubt of Moses: the time when he doubted and struck the rock! Because of that the Good Lord punished him and he was not able to enter the Promised Land. Well then! I do not think that this doubt is to Moses’s credit; the rest of the time he was rather forceful in his assertions… without a doubt.
It is really surprising, this idea that there must be doubts about everything; it is very peculiar! I will not say that this is reminiscent of Descartes, but… it creates an atmosphere. And what is really dangerous is that they leave it at that in the newspapers and the media… He is to some extent the darling of the media, he is well regarded, they praise him, they showcase him, but that does not get to the bottom of the matter.


By the way, I just noticed in checking this that the headline is from Rorate Caeli - New comprehensive interview by SSPX Superior-General: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist in theology, but in action".

The quote marks are in the original headline. They are utterly misleading. Bishop Fellay did not say that he didn't mean to say that Francis is a Modernist. He did mean to say it. Rorate causing trouble yet again.

Incidentally, I have been reading about Roncalli and the genesis of the Council. What is very striking is the similarity of character between Roncalli and Bergoglio. Both humble-humble types, ostentatiously so, both men of actions rather than words, both sly and calculating, both given to big moments designed to create headlines, both amiable in nature and particularly friendly to non-Catholics, both Modernists. Bergoglio is John XXIV.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
I don't know, Evangelium Gaudium seems to fit the bill pretty well.

I understand the distinction that Bishop Fellay is trying to make, I just don't see it as anything truly remarkable or worthy of much consideration. Pius X did not label modernists only as those who write tomes, did he? That Francis prefers modernism in action over modernism on paper does not seem to make much of a difference, when him taking modernism into action presupposes that he has already embraced it theoretically; doesn't it? In which case, it doesn't make any sense to say he's a "modernist in/of action" instead of or rather than a "theoretical/absolute modernist" since the former depends on the latter, no?


Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:02 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Mithrandylan wrote:
I don't know, Evangelium Gaudium seems to fit the bill pretty well.

I understand the distinction that Bishop Fellay is trying to make, I just don't see it as anything truly remarkable or worthy of much consideration. Pius X did not label modernists only as those who write tomes, did he? That Francis prefers modernism in action over modernism on paper does not seem to make much of a difference, when him taking modernism into action presupposes that he has already embraced it theoretically; doesn't it? In which case, it doesn't make any sense to say he's a "modernist in/of action" instead of or rather than a "theoretical/absolute modernist" since the former depends on the latter, no?


Mith, we don't know what was said to him that made him react by clarifying his comment. But I do know that he receives countless offers of advice, criticisms, and condemnations...

So he clarifies by pointing out that he is judging based upon Bergoglio's actions, which is what he was thinking of when he made the original comment. Rorate then turns that into "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist..." when that isn't what he said at all. He did mean to say it. He said it to me too. It's what he thinks. It's what everybody thinks.

When you're a public figure with enemies, everything you say will be parsed and criticised. You have to decide whether to say anything at all, and then when you do, you have to decide whether you'll answer the criticisms your words will attract. If you answer them, you provide more grist for the mill; if you don't, your enemies will take that as proof that you have been caught out. So you can't win. Most of the time Bishop Fellay ignores his critics and just keeps giving his conferences explaining his thinking and what the SSPX is doing. I agree with that policy.

I'm waiting for the Resistance to reply to the charges of heresy and the preaching of revolution that I and others have leveled against Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson. I'm not going to hold my breath while waiting! But the longer it goes, the more obvious it will be to dispassionate observers that when those people claim that they are interested in truth, especially the sacred doctrines paid for by the Blood of Christ, they are lying. They don't even know their faith, and that's why they don't recognise heresy when it is yelled at them, and they don't care anyway. They have signed up for a party, and its slogans, and nothing else matters. Two legs bad, four legs good...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Couldn't the words vs actions difference just be a product of modern communications? When Pius X spoke of Modernists in Pascendi the written word was the normal means of communication. Nowadays, modernists are on stage for the world to see and hear.


Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
2Vermont wrote:
Couldn't the words vs actions difference just be a product of modern communications?


No, it's a deliberate choice of communication style. Bergoglio understands human nature very well, and particularly modern man, who is not a theoretical beast, but rather a creature of emotion and impression. He is playing to that. Roncalli did it as well. You avoid a lot of trouble if you don't say things like "the Holy Ghost uses false religions as means of salvation," and instead just go along and enjoy photo-ops with tribal animists, Moslems, Jews, Anglicans, etc. Of course, Bergoglio has done both, but he mainly does the ostentatiously meaningful actions. That's his forte.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
John Lane wrote:
2Vermont wrote:
Couldn't the words vs actions difference just be a product of modern communications?


No, it's a deliberate choice of communication style. Bergoglio understands human nature very well, and particularly modern man, who is not a theoretical beast, but rather a creature of emotion and impression. He is playing to that. Roncalli did it as well. You avoid a lot of trouble if you don't say things like "the Holy Ghost uses false religions as means of salvation," and instead just go along and enjoy photo-ops with tribal animists, Moslems, Jews, Anglicans, etc. Of course, Bergoglio has done both, but he mainly does the ostentatiously meaningful actions. That's his forte.


I'm not sure I was clear. At the time that Pascendi was written would modernists use actions or would they use words? I'm guessing the latter because that was how most clergy communicated then. That would explain why Pius X didn't mention spotting Modernists through their actions. I'm concerned that an argument would be made that, since Francis doesn't use words primarily, then he's not truly a modernist.


Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist…"
Mithrandylan wrote:
I don't know, Evangelium Gaudium seems to fit the bill pretty well.

I understand the distinction that Bishop Fellay is trying to make, I just don't see it as anything truly remarkable or worthy of much consideration. Pius X did not label modernists only as those who write tomes, did he? That Francis prefers modernism in action over modernism on paper does not seem to make much of a difference, when him taking modernism into action presupposes that he has already embraced it theoretically; doesn't it? In which case, it doesn't make any sense to say he's a "modernist in/of action" instead of or rather than a "theoretical/absolute modernist" since the former depends on the latter, no?


Ditto.

Just because someone prefers to express himself verbally, magazines, interviews, visually, sermons etc... We have him pinned down on the words, text, visual, and audio.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:41 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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.