SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay interviewed

Our friends at Rorate have posted an interview by Brian Mershon with SSPX Superior Bp. Bernard Fellay.

Here is an excerpt:

Brian Mershon: Some critics say that the Society’s rejection of a canonical or practical solution is a sign of obstinacy or ill will. How do you answer that?

Bishop Fellay: It is very simple. The Holy See has agreed that the doctrinal talks should happen, so that should answer the questions without putting the burden on me. Besides that, it is very clear that whatever practical solution that would happen without a sound doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster. We don’t want that. We want and need the security of a sound solution on the level of doctrine to go ahead. So to pretend there is something definitive prior to engaging in the doctrinal talks…

We have all these previous examples in front of us—the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King and all of the others are totally blocked on the level of doctrine because they first accepted the practical agreement.

Brian Mershon: Do you believe the Pope personally sincerely desires a canonical solution with the Society of St. Pius X?

Bishop Fellay: Yes, I think so. Yes, I do. I think the Pope desires this. He wants the Church to be better and he wants to complete the quest of the consecration of bishops with the Society.

Technorati Tags:

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Pope of Christian Unity and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay interviewed

  1. nzcatholic says:

    This is a man who is in love with the Catholic faith. I cant wait for the day when his society is back in full communion with the church. Father Z a question haunts me. How come I can receive communion from a Priest who is ” in communion with Rome” but beleives in gay sexual relationships and has a weird liturgical pratices. Yet Im discouraged from receiving communion from a Priest of the Society of Pope Pius the 10th as they are “not fully in communion with Rome”

  2. Paul H says:

    Does anyone know what Bishop Fellay means about the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King being “totally blocked on the level of doctrine”? Does he mean that these groups have doctrinal disagreements with the pope, or with the Catechism, or with Vatican II (properly understood)? It would surprise me if that were true.

  3. kgurries says:

    I think Pope Benedict said it himself: the SSPX will have no canonical mission until the doctrinal issues are resolved. It sounds like both sides agree on this point. I am a little confused about the other traditional communities being “blocked” on doctrine. They all seem to be carrying on their canonical mission in complete fidelity to truth.

  4. robtbrown says:

    I think the “blocked” comment refers to the fact that those in the FSSP who moved over from the SSPX lost any leverage they might have had to speak to Rome about any problems they might have with VatII.

  5. Dr. Eric says:

    I am now attending an ICKSP Oratory and from what I have heard or seen the ICKSP has no problem with Vatican II and the correct interpretation of the documents of the Council.

  6. joan ellen says:

    I am now attending an ICKSP Oratory and from what I have heard or seen the ICKSP has no problem with Vatican II and the correct interpretation of the documents of the Council.

    Comment by Dr. Eric — 12 May 2010 @ 12:49 pm

    To me this is such wonderful news. Thank you Dr. Eric. ArchB. Raymond Burke and many others, who are so saintly in the Modern Church, seem to be o.k. with the doctrinal aspects of Vatican II. Maybe they add a bit of trust to the doctrinal aspects…as in trusting in the Holy Spirit.

  7. Sam Urfer says:

    nzcatholic:

    “Ex Opere Operato means that if the communicative nature of the Christian sacraments is acknowledged, a sacrament properly performed is seen to convey God’s grace independently of the faith or moral character of the celebrant or recipients. Its value springs from its divine institution, “from the work already done” (Latin ex opere operato), in which the sacrament participates. The opposite position has been maintained by some – that the value of the sacrament does depend in some way on those who celebrate and receive, ex opere operantis (“from the work being done”).”

    http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/exopere.htm

    You can see Canon VIII of the seventh session of the Council of Trent for full details. The character or orthodoxy of the priest doesn’t matter at all; the Sacrament is what counts. And the SSPX practices illicitly right now.

  8. kgurries says:

    Dr. Eric makes a great point. There need be no “problem” with Vatican II so long as one understands it according to a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. The “problem” arises when we buy into the notion (often promoted by so-called progressives) that Vatican II constituted a substantial rupture from the past.

  9. MichaelJ says:

    Webster’s defines “hermeneutic” as “a method or principle of interpretation”. Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that of all 21 Church Councils, Vatican II seems to be the only one that needs “a method or principle of interpretation”. All others seemed to be able to express their intent to reasonable people of good will without resorting to a secret decoder ring.

  10. SonofMonica says:

    I thought we were supposed to ignore the documents of the Council and just live by its Spirit? Isn’t that what Vatican II says? Or something? I mean, like, I know, right?

  11. kgurries says:

    MichaelJ, basically it means that one should read the text within the context of Tradition. Practically no text is completely immune to human manipulations by isolating certain aspects from its proper context. In fact, the Bible itself requires a proper hermeneutic — lest it be manipulated where various parts are isolated and taken out of proper context. In other words, the problem is not the text (even if no human text is perfect in every respect) but in those who would abuse or manipulate the text.

  12. robtbrown says:

    kgurries,

    I tend to agree with Michael J on this one. There are many ambiguities in Vat II.

  13. Jayna says:

    “There are many ambiguities in Vat II.”

    Well, ambiguities combined with a large number of people keen to exploit them in order to further their own agenda. Even the ambiguities would be resolvable if the entire reason for Vatican II and its fruits hadn’t been misrepresented by the liberal narrative. As kgurries said, a sound hermeneutic consistent with Tradition is required to properly interpret any Church teaching.

    As some said above, I too am a little thrown by Bp. Fellay’s comment about the FSSP being “blocked.” I don’t like to think that they would have lost leverage simply because they decided to remain in full communion while the SSPX didn’t. It makes it sound like they jumped ship.

  14. Sixupman says:

    These arguments regarding SSPX are ridiculous. My parish priest, from all appearances, does not believe in The Real Presence. He does however believe in married clergy, probably women clergy, certainly the priesthood of the laity, with, presumably, they running the parish and dictating the manner of services – with the priest their lacky. That position is mirrored in multiple parishes throughout the UK. What about the homosexual covens within both the Scotland,USA and, presumably, elsewhere, yet they are allowed to ply their merry trade without let or hindrance.

    Look at the treatment of Msgr. Lefebvre at the outset, by the European hierarchy and no defence from the Vatican. It was an absolute disgrace. What about the clergy that questionned, on grounds of conscience, the introduction of the NOM – and were mercilessly persecuted. Yet we were presented with a veritable plethora of alternatives to the NOM and nary a word from the bishops’ conferences.

    MY daughter lives in Germany and reckons many clergy are running girl-friends, akin the ther position in Mahonyland [boyfriends here] and elsewhere.

    I despair. Finally, within the UK province of SSPX I am anathema, therefore my observations are not biased – except against the bishops who are supposed to protect The Faith, but instead do everything to undermine it!

  15. robtbrown says:

    Well, ambiguities combined with a large number of people keen to exploit them in order to further their own agenda. Even the ambiguities would be resolvable if the entire reason for Vatican II and its fruits hadn’t been misrepresented by the liberal narrative. As kgurries said, a sound hermeneutic consistent with Tradition is required to properly interpret any Church teaching.

    It’s no surprise that people were keen to exploit the ambiguities because that was the crowd responsible for the existence of the ambiguous texts.

    As some said above, I too am a little thrown by Bp. Fellay’s comment about the FSSP being “blocked.” I don’t like to think that they would have lost leverage simply because they decided to remain in full communion while the SSPX didn’t. It makes it sound like they jumped ship.
    Comment by Jayna

    Do you think that a religious order, for example, the Marists, can tell Rome they want a meeting with the SDCF to discuss objectionable texts from Vat II?

  16. MichaelJ says:

    Sorry, I do not buy the idea of “…ambiguities combined with a large number of people keen to exploit them in order to further their own agenda”. To subscribe to this means that I must also believe that everyone (or at least the vast majority) who has mis-interpreted the intent of the council documents has done so out of malicious ill-will.

    While I agree that any text can be abused and manipulated to suit a particular individual’s nefarious ends, I reject the notion that clearly written documents will be manipulated by men of good will

    All I am saying, as I have said before, is that if 90% of a teacher’s student’s miserably fail a test, perhaps it is time to stop blaming the students an re-examine the lecture material.