Interview Bishop Fellay: June 28, 2018
Jun 29, 2018 15:09:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 15:09:46 GMT
Here we go again, another disparaging interview from Bishop Fellay to a German News outlet Die Tagespot. This time, and as usual, Bishop Fellay opens up to secular entities as he does with the modernist in rome; but to us, he slams his fist against a table as Bishop Williamson does when we ask him for truth.
The large takeaway is Bishop Fellay continues to harmonize with Vatican II as not being the problem as it that "outside" elements corrupted it with wrong interpretations. Much like what Bishop Zendejas said in his Blue Paper "the council was good but wrongly interpreted". How these bishops have fallen for a few emotions to gain acceptance by their human peers.
The goal? To LESSEN and ALTER the State of Necessity, as if there is none but discomforts, to bring his SSPX members and followers into the deal with modern rome.
Contrarily and as such it breaks with their founder Archbishop Lefebvre who stated that both: many of Vatican II's documents are dangerous and AGAINST the faith and therefore the WHOLE of Vatican II is dangerous and AGAINST the faith. Like arsenic is incorporated into a pie.
So the craft of Bishop Fellay tries to make Vatican II "Catholic" and a part of "living tradition" which must be accepted and expressed in the neo-tradition of the Ecclesia Dei. If not, we are schismatic to the Church. But what church is being refereed? The conciliar church said Archbishop Lefebvre who cared nothing for the phony neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant rome of the council but only for true Catholic rome; the Eternal rome of Jesus Christ.
The interview follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source (with Google translation)
"We are a disruptive factor in the church"
In 1988, the Pius brother Bernard Fellay was illegally bishop. Today he hopes for reconciliation. An encounter in Stuttgart. By Regina Einig
Excellency, how did you celebrate your episcopal consecration 30 years ago? Was that for you a definite separation of the Brotherhood of Rome from Rome or an interim stage in conflict where you had the reconciliation in mind?
Bishop Fellay:
Bishop Fellay:
If it had been a separation from Rome then, I would not be here today. The Archbishop would not have consecrated me for that, and I would have rejected it. It was not a question of a separation from the church, but of a demarcation from the modern spirit, from the fruits of the council. Meanwhile, others confess that something went wrong there. Many thoughts and aspects that we fought and combat are now also confirmed by others. We never said that the council directly made heretical statements. But the wall of protection against error has been removed, and in this way error has arisen. The faithful need protection. This is the constant struggle of the quarreling Church to defend the faith.
But not all who criticize the "Council of the Media", including the emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, take a conflict until excommunication. Why have you not strengthened the ranks of traditionalists within the Church and fought for the truth in unity with Rome?
But not all who criticize the "Council of the Media", including the emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, take a conflict until excommunication. Why have you not strengthened the ranks of traditionalists within the Church and fought for the truth in unity with Rome?
Bishop Fellay:
This is partly due to the history of the French. Since the French Revolution, a good number of French Catholics have been fighting against the error of liberalism. Therefore, events during and after the Council were perceived there much more sensitively and sensitively than in Germany. It was not about blatant errors, but about tendencies, about opening doors and windows. The reforms after that showed it more clearly than the Council itself. The problem crystallized in the new mass. In Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre was told: "Either - or. They celebrate the new fair once, and everything is fine. "Our arguments against the new fair did not count. The Missal is Paul VI. written in collaboration with Protestant theologians. If one is urged to celebrate this Mass, then there really is a problem. And we were urged.
Did your rejection of the new Mass reaffirm both you and Archbishop Lefebvre's view that separation from Rome is the will of God?
Bishop Fellay:
I insist: we never parted with the church.
But the fact of excommunication speaks for itself. Why would Pope Benedict XVI have else you should pick them up?
But the fact of excommunication speaks for itself. Why would Pope Benedict XVI have else you should pick them up?
Bishop Fellay:
In the Catholic law of 1917, episcopal consecration without the mandate of the Pope is not considered a schism, but only as an abuse of violence and even without excommunication. The whole history of the church has a different view on the problem of episcopal ordinations, which take place without the order of the pope. This is very important.
Why is that so important? In 1988, the new Code of Law was already in force - and the CIC of 1917 also pledged the Bishop to be faithful to the Holy See.
Why is that so important? In 1988, the new Code of Law was already in force - and the CIC of 1917 also pledged the Bishop to be faithful to the Holy See.
Bishop Fellay:
We were in dire straits because Rome had appointed a bishop for us. The meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre on May 5, 1988, was about the dedication date. Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger could not agree. Archbishop Lefebvre had made a proposal. I am sure that if Cardinal Ratzinger had confirmed the date of 15 August as a dedication date without a change of candidate, the archbishop would have accepted it. But the appointment remained open. When Archbishop Lefebvre asked the cardinal, "Why not at the end of the year?" He received the answer, "I do not know, I can not say it." Therefore, the archbishop thought they were playing with him. That was certainly a point of mistrust. And mistrust is still a key word in our story. We're working to overcome that and then something comes up again - it's really hard.
(Editor's note: The emeritus Pope told the editors that he no longer remembered the details, but was fairly sure that the personnel question had played only a minor role.) John Paul II had firmly committed to episcopal consecration At the end of the conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre had signed the protocol, which, if he had remained at his yes, would have meant the agreement that an associate of the Congregation of the Faith had reached Lefebvre in Albano the following day Lefebvre explained to everyone that he had been unable to sleep through the night and had come to realize that in reality, the unity was only to be used to destroy his work.)
Why did not Cardinal Ratzinger, a renowned connoisseur and supporter of the Catholic tradition and a friend of the traditional mass, reassure the archbishop's suspicions?
(Editor's note: The emeritus Pope told the editors that he no longer remembered the details, but was fairly sure that the personnel question had played only a minor role.) John Paul II had firmly committed to episcopal consecration At the end of the conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre had signed the protocol, which, if he had remained at his yes, would have meant the agreement that an associate of the Congregation of the Faith had reached Lefebvre in Albano the following day Lefebvre explained to everyone that he had been unable to sleep through the night and had come to realize that in reality, the unity was only to be used to destroy his work.)
Why did not Cardinal Ratzinger, a renowned connoisseur and supporter of the Catholic tradition and a friend of the traditional mass, reassure the archbishop's suspicions?
Bishop Fellay:
He did not understand how deep the archbishop's motives were, and the insecurity of the faithful and priests. Many have simply had their fill of the post-conciliar scandals and annoyances, as well as the way the new Mass was celebrated. If Cardinal Ratzinger had understood us, he would not have acted that way. And I think he regretted that. Therefore, as a pope, he then tried to repair the damage with the motu proprio and lifted the excommunication. We are really thankful for his attempts at reconciliation.
But Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also had to consider the difficulties and irritations of the other believers: it is irritating, for example, that Pius brothers contradict each other in essential points such as the question of the validity of the Mass. Some of your followers believe that by visiting what they see as the "heretical" new mass, the Sunday duty is not fulfilled.
But Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also had to consider the difficulties and irritations of the other believers: it is irritating, for example, that Pius brothers contradict each other in essential points such as the question of the validity of the Mass. Some of your followers believe that by visiting what they see as the "heretical" new mass, the Sunday duty is not fulfilled.
Bishop Fellay:
I have to argue hard: we are already talking about the invalidity of many fairs. But to say that all fairs are invalid, that is not the line of the fraternity. We never said that. In the discussion with Rome, we have always emphasized that we recognize the validity of the new Mass when it is celebrated according to the books and with the intention to do what is required of the Church. There is a distinction between valid and good.
Where is the difference for you?
Where is the difference for you?
Bishop Fellay:
The new fair has shortcomings and risks. Of course, not every new mass is a direct scandal, but the repeated celebration of the new mass leads to a weak belief or even a loss of faith. You see every day how fewer priests still believe in the real presence. At the old Mass, the liturgy nourishes the faith; one goes to the rock, one is strengthened in this belief; certain actions lead us further in faith, for example, in the belief in the real presence, in the sacrifice - only by kneeling, for example, by the silence, the attitude of the priest. At the new Mass one must bring the faith, one hardly receives anything directly from the rite. The rite is flat.
But even before the liturgical reform there were priests with weak faith, modernists and heretics. The Liberal Council Fathers you criticized all grew up with the old Mass and were ordained in the old rite. Do conversions that are promoted today through the new show - think of Nightfever - for self-deception?
But even before the liturgical reform there were priests with weak faith, modernists and heretics. The Liberal Council Fathers you criticized all grew up with the old Mass and were ordained in the old rite. Do conversions that are promoted today through the new show - think of Nightfever - for self-deception?
Bishop Fellay:
No, I do not say that. All I'm saying is, if you receive a president and have the choice between a silver trumpet and a brass trumpet, will you take the brass trumpet? That would be an insult, you do not do that. And even the best new fairs are like brass trumpets compared to the old liturgy. For the good God, you have to take the best.
In a sermon you recently said, "How dare you make such a miserable, empty and flat Mass? That is not the way to honor God. "And today, the new Mass is the most precious thing in the lives of Catholic believers, and even today the Church brings forth martyrs and saints. Why do not you differentiate in the Annunciation?
In a sermon you recently said, "How dare you make such a miserable, empty and flat Mass? That is not the way to honor God. "And today, the new Mass is the most precious thing in the lives of Catholic believers, and even today the Church brings forth martyrs and saints. Why do not you differentiate in the Annunciation?
Bishop Fellay:
I agree that one must distinguish in the theological discussion. But in a sermon one can not present everything so theologically. It also requires a bit of rhetoric to shake up the souls a bit and wake people up and open their eyes.
Pope Francis wants to give the priesthood brotherhood a hand for reconciliation. Do you still expect an agreement or has this kairos been missed?
Pope Francis wants to give the priesthood brotherhood a hand for reconciliation. Do you still expect an agreement or has this kairos been missed?
Bishop Fellay:
I am optimistic. But I can not prefer the hour of God. If the Holy Spirit is able to influence the current Pope, then he will do the same with the next one. That's what happened. And also with Pope Francis. When Pope Francis was elected, I thought: Now comes the excommunication. The opposite was the case: Cardinal Müller wanted to achieve our excommunication and Pope Francis rejected it. He told me personally: "I will not judge you!" The reconciliation will come. Our Mother Church is currently incredibly torn. The Conservatives want us and have said so in the Congregation of the Faith. The German bishops do not want us at all. Rome has to reckon with all these elements - we understand that. If we were simply accepted, there would be war in the church. There is the fear that we could triumph. Pope Francis told journalists: "I will make sure that it is no triumph for you."
But tensions and fears also exist within the Pius brothers. In France, many priests and lay people have separated from the fraternity because the negotiations with the Vatican have stirred up mistrust. How would the Pius brothers reconcile with Rome?
But tensions and fears also exist within the Pius brothers. In France, many priests and lay people have separated from the fraternity because the negotiations with the Vatican have stirred up mistrust. How would the Pius brothers reconcile with Rome?
Bishop Fellay:
That will depend on what Rome demands of us. Let's go ahead and give us enough guarantees - then no one goes away. Mistrust is based on the fear of having to accept the new. If you ask us to go new ways, then nobody comes.
What makes you so sure that everyone could go along? But the announcement of the talks has already triggered massive unrest and resignations. Which conclusion could reassure their followers? The mistrust would not simply be gone after an agreement.
What makes you so sure that everyone could go along? But the announcement of the talks has already triggered massive unrest and resignations. Which conclusion could reassure their followers? The mistrust would not simply be gone after an agreement.
Bishop Fellay:
This is true. But goodness is there, benevolence. For years, we have been working with Rome to rebuild trust. And we have made great progress despite all the reactions. If we come to a reasonable agreement with normal conditions, very few will stay away. I am not afraid of a new split in tradition if the right thing is found with Rome. We may question certain points of the council. Our interlocutors in Rome have told us: The main points - religious freedom, ecumenism, new mass - are open questions. This is incredible progress. Until now it has been said: You must obey. Meanwhile, curia workers tell us: they should open a seminary in Rome, a university for the defense of tradition. It's not all black and white anymore.
What would a reasonable solution look like?
What would a reasonable solution look like?
Bishop Fellay:
A personal prelature.
If the legal form has already been found and the talks in Rome are going well, what has failed the decisive step so far?
A personal prelature.
If the legal form has already been found and the talks in Rome are going well, what has failed the decisive step so far?
Bishop Fellay:
Last year, Archbishop Pozzo told us that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Congregation approved the text we were to sign. We should agree with a personal prelature. One and a half months later, Cardinal Müller decided to revise the text and demand a clearer acceptance of the Council and the legitimacy of the Holy Mass. First of all, we opened discussion channels, then blocked them. What do you really want from us? This is where the devil works. It is a spiritual fight.
Do you personally trust the Holy Father Pope Francis?
Do you personally trust the Holy Father Pope Francis?
Bishop Fellay:
We have a very good relationship. If we let him know that we are in Rome, the door is open to him. He is always helping us on a smaller scale. For example, he told us, "I have problems when I do something good for you. I help Protestants and Anglicans - why can not I help the Catholics? "Some want to prevent the agreement. We are a disruptive factor in the church. The Pope stands in between.
(He smiles and shows a handwritten, French-written letter from the Holy Father to him beginning with the address Cher frere, cher fils - dear brother, dear son).
We have a very good relationship. If we let him know that we are in Rome, the door is open to him. He is always helping us on a smaller scale. For example, he told us, "I have problems when I do something good for you. I help Protestants and Anglicans - why can not I help the Catholics? "Some want to prevent the agreement. We are a disruptive factor in the church. The Pope stands in between.
(He smiles and shows a handwritten, French-written letter from the Holy Father to him beginning with the address Cher frere, cher fils - dear brother, dear son).