Bishop Fellay Interview: The Path of Reconciliation and Restoration is Still Open

Edit: the following is the interview translated at the DICI site in English from the Nouvelles de France site. Bishop Fellay makes some salient points about the struggle for tradition and opens the doors toward reconciliation and the continued restoration of all things unto Christ. Of course, contrary to many parties both within the official Church, Her media, and those outside of Her embrace, this reconciliation is still very much alive and developing:

Your Excellency, would you appreciate it if the last major act of Benedict XVI’s pontificate could be the reintegration of the Society of St. Pius X?

For a moment I thought that, with his resignation, Benedict XVI would perhaps make a final gesture in our favor as Pope. That being said, I have a hard time seeing how he could do so. We will probably have to wait for the next Pope. I will even go so far as to say, at the risk of surprising you, that the Church has more important problems than the Society of St. Pius X, and in a way, it is by resolving these problems that the problem of the Society will be solved.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/02/bishop-fellay-keeps-open-doors-of.html

That reminds me:

O6 wrote:

The contention that the Holy Father is eager to reach an agreement by making concessions was made by Father Pfluger of the Society of St. Pius X this week as he related what went on in the March discussions between the Society and Cardinal Levada of the CDF.

These aren't unsubstantiated rumors, but fairly certain facts related by the concerned parties.

Your [Mike’s] objection to the Holy Father making concessions is an empty one. … Father Pfluger … stated that the Holy Father is willing to concede these points of doctrine.

"There can be no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement", said Father Pflugger, expressing himself with the original negotiation maxim of the Society. It should become clear, however, "that Pope Benedict XVI. is very interested in a canonical solution for the Society, that he is ready, to conclude an agreement even if the controversial texts of the Vatican Council II and the New Mass are not recongized."

I guess you'll just have to wait and see now as to whether it's correct, but I'm sure that when it turns out to have been accurate, we'll not hear anything of it, at least not from you.

(https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t845-holy-father-willing-to-concede-on-two-points-for-sspx)

According to Bishop Fellay, this was the case Pre-August.

Do you know something he doesn’t?

For my part, I grow weary of you posting your own version of what people say to you in order to misrepresent them.

otremer6 wrote:According to Bishop Fellay, this was the case Pre-August.

Do you know something he doesn’t?

For my part, I grow weary of you posting your own version of what people say to you in order to misrepresent them.

And I am growing weary of your snarky misrepresentations and obfuscations. You spin the facts to your own benefit, and ignore the rest.

So at least we have something in common - weariness.

Oh, and the "concessions" to doctrine will be coming any day now.

MRyan wrote:

otremer6 wrote:According to Bishop Fellay, this was the case Pre-August.

Do you know something he doesn’t?

For my part, I grow weary of you posting your own version of what people say to you in order to misrepresent them.

And I am growing weary of your snarky misrepresentations and obfuscations. You spin the facts to your own benefit, and ignore the rest.

So at least we have something in common - weariness.

Oh, and the "concessions" to doctrine will be coming any day now.

You ignore and misrepresent what is presented to you and report your own precarious version of things.

I know people who do things like that and they’re invariably Communists or fellow travelers.

otremer6 wrote:

MRyan wrote:

otremer6 wrote:According to Bishop Fellay, this was the case Pre-August.

Do you know something he doesn’t?

For my part, I grow weary of you posting your own version of what people say to you in order to misrepresent them.

And I am growing weary of your snarky misrepresentations and obfuscations. You spin the facts to your own benefit, and ignore the rest.

So at least we have something in common - weariness.

Oh, and the "concessions" to doctrine will be coming any day now.

You ignore and misrepresent what is presented to you and report your own precarious version of things.

I know people who do things like that and they’re invariably Communists or fellow travelers.

Ah, those blasted "Communists", they're everywhere!

If it walks like a duck.

otremer6 wrote:http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-next-pope-will-decide-on-sspx.html

I never believed these rumors of the so-called "ultimatum".

But this does not change the fact that the Pope is not going to compromise on the authenticity of VCII and the New Mass.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1983:

"In the third paragraph you speak of 'statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.' Then you list three texts of the Council 'incompatible', according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an 'etc.' …But you can not assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you ARE DEPARTING DEEPLY from the fundamental structure of the Catholic faith; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City."

No compromise on doctrine.

MRyan wrote;
But this does not change the fact that the Pope is not going to compromise on the authenticity of VCII and the New Mass.

Whether a pope compromises or not won't change the facts concerning either. The Lord Himself seems to have shown His contempt for what He is being offered as worship if we can judge from the general calibre of priest He has permitted to do the offering. Both the worship offered and the priests offering it are on a par (if one reads the signs).

Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1983:

"In the third paragraph you speak of 'statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.' Then you list three texts of the Council 'incompatible', according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an 'etc.' …But you can not assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you ARE DEPARTING DEEPLY from the fundamental structure of the Catholic faith; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City."

No need to assert the incompatibility. As the saying goes, some things are self evident. Besides that, the SSPX have been asking for the very thing that Cardinal Ratzinger says they should be asking for.. "EXPLANATIONS." and none were forthcomming. If valid explanations could be given, the SSPX would cease to exist in its current state. No explanations at all were given never mind valid ones. The reason being, no such explanations exist. The ultimatum... Accept it all and don't ask questions.

MRyan wrote:
No compromise on doctrine.

If that were true there'd be one, big, happy family.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote;
But this does not change the fact that the Pope is not going to compromise on the authenticity of VCII and the New Mass.

Whether a pope compromises or not won't change the facts concerning either. The Lord Himself seems to have shown His contempt for what He is being offered as worship if we can judge from the general calibre of priest He has permitted to do the offering. Both the worship offered and the priests offering it are on a par (if one reads the signs).

So, against the full and immediate Primacy of his own Vicar, our Lord backs Ab Lefebvre's act of willful disobedience in consecrating priests and Bishops against the express will of the Holy Father -- and sees this as a grave injustice inflicted by His Vicar who obviously didn't realize that Ab Lefebvre and his Bishop's elect were merely trying to save the Pope from himself, and the true Church and the Faithful from the Pope and a "Conciliar Church" hell bent on destroying the priesthood, the Mass and the Church.

And just look at the quality of priests saying Mass these days, and contrast that with all of the beautiful TLM's being said by traditional priests independent of the Vicar of Christ's jurisdiction. Why, it is said even our Blessed Mother supports such disobedience to the Holy Father, for she also has nothing but contempt for the Ordinary Rite of the Mass.

Are you trying to sell me a bridge, columba? Its not working.

columba wrote:
Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1983:

"In the third paragraph you speak of 'statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.' Then you list three texts of the Council 'incompatible', according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an 'etc.' …But you can not assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you ARE DEPARTING DEEPLY from the fundamental structure of the Catholic faith; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City."

No need to assert the incompatibility. As the saying goes, some things are self evident.

So it is self-evident that there exists an "incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition"? Really? Then why do I not see it after having spent considerable time studying the texts and the explanations of approved theologians who agree (with only relatively few hold-outs), even if they disagree on non-essential points, that there is NO incompatibility between the respective Magisteriums and irreformable Traditions?

You are telling us that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope BXVI, and all of these theologians, have no idea what they are talking about.

And what you propose is heresy, pure and simple. Note well that Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to irreformable "Tradition" and the infallible "Magisterium".

columba wrote:
Besides that, the SSPX have been asking for the very thing that Cardinal Ratzinger says they should be asking for.. "EXPLANATIONS." and none were forthcomming. If valid explanations could be given, the SSPX would cease to exist in its current state. No explanations at all were given never mind valid ones. The reason being, no such explanations exist. The ultimatum... Accept it all and don't ask questions.

When it is already assumed, praesumo presumo, that the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - are contrary to, and incompatible with, the Magisterium and Tradition, no "explanations", which have already been given in spades by approved theologians, will be acceptable. You are asking the Church to provide "explanations" sufficient enough to refute a negative.

Please.