Bishop Fellay on regularization

[ABlaine]

I know how they were treated, but as Bishop Fellay said five years ago:

The description lacks a supernatural spirit. ...

And he said 13 years ago:

On the other hand, you have those who say, "Look, Rome is opening its arms, Rome is saying, 'Come in; we'll give you an apostolic administration; we'll give you whatever you want,' so why are you so stand-offish?" I'll tell you why, which is one of the purposes of this conference.

I'll start with a crushing piece of recent news which illustrates so clearly what happens when you offer your finger...your hand...your arm to the present Rome. We have right in our faces a striking example of what happens to those who trust the present Rome. I speak of Campos.

When Campos was about to make the agreement with Rome, Bishop de Galarreta went to see Bishop Rangel and then I did, too. I told him, "Look at what they are doing to the Society of St. Peter." He replied, "Well, what Rome offers us is so big that we cannot help but trust them. Of course, it's a question of opinion; it's a matter of prudence." There was nothing more I could do. His thinking was that since Rome consented to grant them a bishop and their Tridentine life, Campos was being granted everything it wanted, so they wanted to sign an agreement.?...

So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision...?"

I can find more quotes from the same person who called this suicide and a golden cage. He said it was "natural" for Rifan to say the Novus Ordo after the deal. He said it would destroy the Society. Again, this is the same man. If one follows this line of thinking you cannot blame such people for not changing their mind. In fact more blame could be associated to the person who blasted Campos for selling out, saying it was natural they said the Novus Ordo, and it was suicide.

I'm not saying Fellay is wrong for doing a deal with Rome, what I am defending are those people who think he's wrong based on his view the majority of his life as a priest and bishop.

Provided he has always been clear that reunifying with Rome is the long term goal, which I believe is the case, then the fact that he has said 'now is the wrong time' for the majority of his life is not indicative of anything. For one thing, a lot can change in 13 years. for another, when you are waiting for the optimal time to do something, the fact that the last 13 or 40 years have not been optimal is inconsequential.

If I am waiting for the perfect time to buy a house, the fact that it didn't make sense for 13 doesn't mean that it doesn't now. Thinking this way means there will never be a reunification which, to me, in far more dangerous than anything else.

At least where I stand the SSPX is in a pretty good position. Here in France they make up such a percentage of practicing Catholics that they are practically untouchable. Sure they're be in a better position in 10 or 20 years, and the Church would be in a weaker position. But the real risk is letting SSPX calcify outside of the church.

The real threat to the SSPX are the people that keep trying to splinter off. The whole resistance/sede thing going on in the US has far more potential to cause problems for SSPX leadership and laity than Rome. At least right now.

Yes it does seem like the spider inviting the fly into her web, but I have faith in a favorable outcome.

[Elizabeth]

..........
The real threat to the SSPX are the people that keep trying to splinter off. The whole resistance/sede thing going on in the US has far more potential to cause problems for SSPX leadership and laity than Rome. At least right now........

Agreed.

[Irishcyclist]

SSPX will be shredded by Rome, and sifted by Lucifer.

I'd love to see the ecclesiological mental gymnastics you'd have to play to justify such rhetoric. It sounds like something straight from the mouth of Martin Luther, not a Catholic in Ireland.

I'll ignore your attempt at trying to patronise me - and your reference to Martin Luther.

SSPX are going to clean up the Church? Naive at best, delinquent at worst.

[bigbadtrad]

If one says you need doctrine first and that any practical agreement without that is suicide and it's the same person who says these things then there is a principle that is lost. Either it was true when you said it or it was not. Prudence does not change a principle. Prudence merely points out where such a principle is necessary or unnecessary based on extenuating circumstances.

The principle of doctrine before practical agreement was a mantra of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay until around a decade ago.

You gave the example of a house. I love the analogy so let's stay with it. What if the inspector made a statement of principle that one could not buy the house until the foundation is secure (doctrine) and to figure out how to live in it without the foundation it would be "suicide" (practical decision). What if the inspector who said you needed the foundation first changed his mind and said one could live in it? At that point the inspector would either be under an emotional duress or they would be denying their own logic based on principles.

I believe Bishop Fellay is under emotional duress, and while he might be well meaning the people who bring up the principle should not be castigated as leprosy. Their argument is valid because if the house is built on sand there is no perfect time to get the house.

Yes I agree the resistance to Fellay is dangerous but those people aren't necessarily wrong in principle. The problem stems from the leader who has made 2 different positions and the founder who said such a position would be impossible without doctrine. The resistance is an effect, not a cause in the same way the SSPX is without canonical regularization because its an effect of a bad situation in Rome and in the diocese throughout the world.

The whole thing is a mess and sadly not fair to the faithful trying to make sense of things.

Now does that mean I'm a resistance person? Nope, not in the slightest. But I won't deny the principle just because the head of the organization of the priests I attend change their mind, and I can't trust the prudential decisions of Bishop Fellay after that idiot in the UK did the interview with him and he even tried to answer this idiot's questions about his sins. Watch this video and tell me if he has good judgment:
[yt]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0eTadAYK6o[/yt]

[Prayerful]

Still not sure this will happen. No one can be. An ongoing policy by both parties of keeping amicable relations or avoiding unnecessary polemics, makes regularisation a likelier thing, but I'll still be surprised if it happens by either the Summorum Pontificum or Fatima anniveraries. A Nelsonian eye could have been cast over erroneous statements or actions of Popes JP2 and BXVI, but for Francis plotting and causing scandal seems to be his raison d'etre. We'll see.

[tradical]

...

The principle of doctrine before practical agreement was a mantra of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay until around a decade ago.
...

If you mean that the sspx would not compromise for the practical agreement, I agree.

If you mean that the archbishop held the necessity for a "doctrinal agreement" (whatever that means) - the the disagree, because I do not believe he ever said those words.

If he did, ++L was confuse when he wrote Pope JP2 that he wanted to be accepted as we are, and when h reiterated it.

The issue that is at stake he is whether or not the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and what our attitude should be towards him.

If he is, and he asks the sspx to accept what, after all human effort has been made to confirm, is is true no-compromise accept us as we are regularization, then the sspx has to either abid by the principles of ++L and submit, trusting to God. 

Sadly humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future (as powerball lotteries show),   after prudence ha been exercised, then obedience under justice needs to be followed.

Otherwise we are no better than the modernists.

P^3

[King Wenceslas]

When one puts oneself into the mouth of a wolf, one should not expect any other result than to be eaten.

[tradical]

When one puts oneself into the mouth of a wolf, one should not expect any other result than to be eaten.

Analogies are analogous of a situation. They always flawed. : example, in reality , if the "lion" is Rome,  rome has authority over the sspx. A lion does not have authority over anyone. To refine the analogy we could say: a man who obeys an order to placce his head in the lions mouth is obeying the superior who says: place you head in this mouth as I will keep it from closin on you and you may take any precautions you feel necessary for your safety including bracing the lions mouth.

Followin catholic principles may be hard, but it is not
impossible.

P3

[King Wenceslas]

When one puts oneself into the mouth of a wolf, one should not expect any other result than to be eaten.

Analogies are analogous of a situation. They always flawed. : example, in reality , if the "lion" is Rome,  rome has authority over the sspx. A lion does not have authority over anyone. To refine the analogy we could say: a man who obeys an order to placce his head in the lions mouth is obeying the superior who says: place you head in this mouth as I will keep it from closin on you and you may take any precautions you feel necessary for your safety including bracing the lions mouth.

Followin catholic principles may be hard, but it is not
impossible.

P3

Aw yes the flawed concept of obedience to Rome so brandied about by the faux traditionalists of these latter days of the church.

Tell that to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate:

Volpi's main criticism of the order was that they had succumbed to a "crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift." 
One of the first orders that Fr. Volpi imposed on the friars was to forbid them from saying the Latin Mass.

Obedience is commanded by God for good, not for evil.

[tradical]

When one puts oneself into the mouth of a wolf, one should not expect any other result than to be eaten.

Analogies are analogous of a situation. They always flawed. : example, in reality , if the "lion" is Rome,  rome has authority over the sspx. A lion does not have authority over anyone. To refine the analogy we could say: a man who obeys an order to placce his head in the lions mouth is obeying the superior who says: place you head in this mouth as I will keep it from closin on you and you may take any precautions you feel necessary for your safety including bracing the lions mouth.

Followin catholic principles may be hard, but it is not
impossible.

P3

Aw yes the flawed concept of obedience to Rome so brandied about by the faux traditionalists of these latter days of the church.

Tell that to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate:

Volpi?s main criticism of the order was that they had succumbed to a ?crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift.? 
One of the first orders that Fr. Volpi imposed on the friars was to forbid them from saying the Latin Mass.

Obedience is commanded by God for good, not for evil.

Ok, let's compare the principle of obedience to the conditions imposed upon the FFI.

Here's a summary of the principle as per St. Thomas Aquinas.



Did the Pope's orders fall within the sphere of his authority - ie to forbid someone from saying the traditional mass?  I believe this would be a no.

Does saying the New Mass constitute proximate or immediate sin?  This is fairly subjective, so I will just say: probably as it presents a danger to the faith due to the ambiguity and aping of the protestants.

On either count (the first being stronger as it is objective) the conditions for obedience were not met.  as we are either in the lower or upper left quadrant.

[Prayerful]

When one puts oneself into the mouth of a wolf, one should not expect any other result than to be eaten.

Analogies are analogous of a situation. They always flawed. : example, in reality , if the "lion" is Rome,  rome has authority over the sspx. A lion does not have authority over anyone. To refine the analogy we could say: a man who obeys an order to placce his head in the lions mouth is obeying the superior who says: place you head in this mouth as I will keep it from closin on you and you may take any precautions you feel necessary for your safety including bracing the lions mouth.

Followin catholic principles may be hard, but it is not
impossible.

P3

Aw yes the flawed concept of obedience to Rome so brandied about by the faux traditionalists of these latter days of the church.

Tell that to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate:

Volpi's main criticism of the order was that they had succumbed to a "crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift." 
One of the first orders that Fr. Volpi imposed on the friars was to forbid them from saying the Latin Mass.

Obedience is commanded by God for good, not for evil.

Ok, let's compare the principle of obedience to the conditions imposed upon the FFI.

Here's a summary of the principle as per St. Thomas Aquinas.



Did the Pope's orders fall within the sphere of his authority - ie to forbid someone from saying the traditional mass?  I believe this would be a no.

Does saying the New Mass constitute proximate or immediate sin?  This is fairly subjective, so I will just say: probably as it presents a danger to the faith due to the ambiguity and aping of the protestants.

On either count (the first being stronger as it is objective) the conditions for obedience were not met.  as we are either in the lower or upper left quadrant.

No Pope or priest can give the impious order to suppress the Mass of Ages. Consider rather obviously how Missale Romanum in Latin offered the NOM to strength devotion, but in no wise was it made an order. Only in translation and in the actions of Bishop's Conferences was the NOM made a requirement, but no Pope, no priest can command impiety, and there was no consenus in respect of this most problematic of liturgies.

[tradical]

No Pope or priest can give the impious order to suppress the Mass of Ages. Consider rather obviously how Missale Romanum in Latin offered the NOM to strength devotion, but in no wise was it made an order. Only in translation and in the actions of Bishop's Conferences was the NOM made a requirement, but no Pope, no priest can command impiety, and there was no consenus in respect of this most problematic of liturgies.

Are you agreeing with me? How is this relevant to the ffi beinng forbidden from celebrating the tridentine mass?