BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

The US site of the FSSPX has published a lengthy interview done by them with Mons. Fellay, superior-general of the controversial fraternity of priests. The questions and the answers are to be considered as primarily directed at their own membership, and therefore slanted (sometiems the questions border on the outrageous even, or are at least, very off-putting), but they are of interest to other Catholics nonetheless as a snapshot of Mons. Fellay's views on the outstanding issues between Rome and the SSPX - some of them obviously fallacious!

Also, I think that many of the questions, mutatis mutandis, should be asked of every bishop today, and it would be interesting if someone like John Allen, say, could compile a uniform questionnaire on doctrinal and pastoral issues within the Church and ask every bishop in the United States to provide written answers to see exactly where they stand with respect to the Magisterium of the Church. And likewise, for an enterprising Catholic journalist in pther countries where there is a significant Catholic population...We know where Mons. Fellay stands. What about our own bishops who are supposed to be in full communion with Rome and the Holy Father?


Questions for Mons. Fellay
Interview by

February 2011

A significant interview was given by Bishop Fellay to the USA District wherein he comments on the main questions concerning the Church and SSPX. No issue has been skipped and we thank His Excellency for giving his time to answer our 54 questions.

We will be offering this comprehensive interview over a 2-day period in six parts: 1: Doctrinal discussions; 2: Motu proprio effects; 3: Assisi III. presented now, and the second part consisting of 4: Beatification of John Paul I; 5: SSPX; and 6: SSPX in USA, and conclusion, later.

Part I: Doctrinal Discussions:

1. Your Excellency, you have decided to attempt doctrinal discussions with Rome. Could you remind us of the purpose?
You have to distinguish between Rome’s purpose and ours. Rome indicated that there were doctrinal problems with the Society [of St. Pius X] and that these problems would have to be cleared up before any canonical recognition, problems which obviously would be up to us to resolve, concerning our acceptance of the [Second Vatican] Council.

But for us it is about something else: we hope to tell Rome what the Church has always taught and thereby to show the contradictions between this centuries-old teaching and what has been done in the Church since the Council. As we look at it, this is the only goal that we are pursuing.

2. What sort of talks are these: negotiations, discussions, or doctrinal explanation?
You can’t call them negotiations. That’s not what they’re about at all. There is on the one hand an explanation of doctrine, and on the other hand a discussion, because we have in fact a Roman interlocutor with whom we are discussing the documents and how to understand them. But you can’t call them negotiations, nor a search for a compromise, for it is a question of Faith.

3. Could you recall the method that is used in the work? What topics have already been addressed?
The working method is the written method; texts are composed which then become the basis for further theological discussion. Several topics have been addressed already. But for the moment I will leave that question up in the air. I can simply tell you that we are coming to the conclusion, because we have made the tour of the major questions raised by the Council.

4. Can you describe the Roman panelists?
They are experts, in other words, theology professors who are also consulting members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One can say that they are “professionals” in theology. One is Swiss, the Rector of the Angelicum, Fr. Morerod, O.P., another is a Jesuit who is somewhat older, Fr. Becker; another is a member of Opus Dei, the Vicar General, Msgr. Ocariz Braña; then Archbishop Ladaria Ferrer, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and finally the moderator, Msgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

5. Has there been a development in the thinking of our dialogue partners since they read the presentations by the SSPX theologians?
I don’t think that you can say that.

6. Bishop de Galarreta, in a sermon during the ordinations in La Reja in December 2009, said that Rome had agreed that the Magisterium prior to Vatican II would be taken as “the only possible common standard” in these talks. Is there some hope that our counterparts will reconsider Vatican II, or is that impossible for them? Is Vatican II really a stumbling-block?
I think that you have to pose the question another way. Pope Benedict XVI made distinctions during his speech in December 2005, by which we see very clearly that one particular understanding of the Council is no longer permitted and therefore, without speaking directly about a re-examination of the Council, there is despite everything a certain intention to revise the way in which the Council is presented.

The distinction may seem rather subtle, but it is precisely the distinction relied on by those who do not want to alter the Council and nevertheless recognize that, because of a certain number of ambiguities there has been an opening leading to forbidden paths, and that we must remember that they are forbidden. Is Vatican II really a stumbling-block? For us, no doubt whatsoever: yes!

But Mons. Fellay and the FSSPX must recognize that Pope has no authority to 'revoke' Vatican II, as it were, because an ecumenical council has valid Magisterial authority that a Pope cannot nullify, that it would take another ecumenical council to revoke or amend any of it. In fact, as Pope, he is required to uphold the Magisterium of an ecumenical council.

The most a Pope is to decree a proper interpretation of key aspects of the Vatican II documents as Benedict XVI did in Summorum Pontificum, in which he points out that nothing in the Council's dogmatic constitution on the liturgy abrogated or invalidated the traditional Mass.

Also, it is most unrealistic and even intellectually dishonest of the FSSPX to demand revocation of the Vatican II pronouncements, no matter how ambiguous, about inter-religious dialog and ecumenism, for instance, knowing full well that Mons. Marcel Lefebvre himself, who had been a Council Father, signed on to all the Vatican II documents without having been coerced to do so! The 1970 liturgical reform sparked off his eventual schism.]

7. Why is it so difficult for them to admit a contradiction between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium?
The answer is rather simple. The moment you recognize the principle that the Church cannot change, if you want to have Vatican II accepted, you are obliged to say that Vatican II did not change anything either. That is why they do not admit that they find any contradiction between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium, but they are nevertheless at a loss to explain the nature of the change which quite evidently has taken place. [Not at all! Benedict XVI has never been 'at a loss' to explain the post-Conciliar crisis of the Church: Very simply, the fact that the progressivists hijacked the interpretation of the Vatican II documents - taking advantage of the deliberate ambiguity chosen in many of its formulations, just to get a majority vote during the Council - and managed to get the media and many bishops and priests on their side. And actually managed to establish some sort of dominance around the world in the next four decades - in their ultra-successful media campaigns, in their influence on seminaries and theologians, in their reinforcement of the liberalizing and secularizing tendencies among many bishops and priests - all the not-so-faithful who came to believe in the 'spirit of Vatican II' mantra that Vatican II had built a 'new Church' and never bothered to read the Vatican-II documents themselves, even if there are only 16 of them!]

8. Besides witnessing to the Faith, is it important and advantageous for the Society of St. Pius X to go to Rome? Is it dangerous, and do you think that it might last a long time?
It is very important that the Society give this witness; that is the reason for these doctrinal talks. It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome, and trying, why not, to make it understood even more throughout the Church. [What an arrogant statement! As if Benedict XVI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were deficient in the faith because they are practical enough to show how Vatican II need not be interpreted as a contradiction of or rejection of Tradition.[

There is one danger: the danger of keeping up illusions. We see that some Catholics have managed to lull themselves to sleep with illusions. But recent events have managed to dispel them. I am thinking about the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II or the announcement of a new Assisi event along the lines of the inter-religious gatherings in 1986 and 2002.
[John Paul II may have failed to act more decisively about the failed 'reception' of Vatican II in its first four decades - not in the way Benedict XVI clearly declared on December 22, 2005, that the only right interpretation of Vatican II is in the hermeneutic of continuity, that it was a renewal of the Church in continuity with Tradition. But his personal holiness which qualifies him to be a future saint has nothing to do with his administrative actions and decisions as Pope.... And about Assisi 2011, even Mons. Fellay admits in this interview and elsewhere that we really do not know what Benedict XVI intends to do. Surely he will not have any of the features that he deemed objectionable or questionable about Assisi-1! And surely, Mons. Fellay should credit Benedict XVI a priori for common sense!]

9. Has the Pope been following these talks closely? Has he commented yet on these talks?
I think so, but have no specific details. Has he commented on these talks? During the meeting last summer with his former students at Castel Gandolfo he said that he was pleased with them. That is all.

10. Can we say that the Holy Father, who has been dealing with the Society of St. Pius X for more than 25 years, is proving to be more benevolent toward it today than in the past?
I am not sure. Yes and no. I think that as Pope, he has responsibility for the whole Church, a concern about its unity, a fear of seeing a schism declared. He himself said that these were the motives that impelled him to act. He is now the visible head of the Church, which may explain why he acts like that. Does that mean that he is showing more understanding toward the Society? I think that he has a certain sympathy for us, but within limits.

11. To sum up, what would you say about these talks today?
If we had to do them over again, we would redo them. They are very important. Of capital importance. If you hope to correct a whole movement of thought, you cannot do without these talks.

12. For some time now we have been hearing voices of ecclesiastics, for example Msgr. Gherardini or Bishop Schneider, who even in Rome are producing genuine critiques of the documents of Vatican II and not just of their interpretation. Can we hope that this movement will grow and make its way into the Vatican?
[With all due respect to Monsignors Gherardini and Schneider, they too have to be practical about what the Pope can and cannot do about the Vatican II documents. Technically, can the full Bishops' Synod - of which the Pope is president - revoke or amend these documents without being constituted into an ecumenical council?]
I do not say that we can hope for it, but that we must hope for it. We must really hope that these initial critiques — let us call them serene, objective critiques — will develop.

Until now Vatican II was always considered as a taboo [as something not to be questioned at all] [Joseph Ratzinger questioned all of the faulty interpretations in the 1984 Ratzinger Report, the single event which crystallized progressivist hostility towards him for breaking the 'taboo', and John Paul II agreed enough with him to convoke the Synodal Assembly on the reception of Vatican II in 1985, on the 20th anniversary of the end of Vatican-II] which makes the cure of this sickness, which is the crisis in the Church, almost impossible. We have to be able to talk about the problems and to go in-depth into these matters, or else we will never get to apply the right remedies.

13. Can the Society of St. Pius X plan an important role in making Rome aware of this? How? What is the role of the lay faithful in this momentous matter?
As for the Society, yes, we can play a role, precisely by presenting what the Church has always taught and by raising objections to the conciliar novelties. The role of the lay faithful is to provide proof in action, for they are the proof that Tradition can be lived today. What the Church has always demanded — traditional discipline — is not only relevant but really viable even today.

14. Your Excellency, do you think that the Motu Proprio, despite its deficiencies, is a step toward restoring Tradition?
It is a step of capital importance. You could even call it an essential step, even though so far it has had practically no effect, or very little, because there is massive opposition by the bishops.

At the juridical level, the Motu Proprio has recognized that the old law, the one pertaining to the traditional Mass, had never been abrogated: this is a step of capital importance in restoring Tradition to its place.

15. Practically speaking, have you seen across the world any important changes on the part of the bishops concerning the traditional Mass since the Motu Proprio?
No. A few here and there who obey the Pope, but they are rare.

16. How about the priests?
Yes, I see a lot of interest on their part, but many of them are persecuted. It takes extraordinary courage simply to dare to apply the Motu Proprio as it was worded; and of course, yes, there are more and more priests, especially in the younger generations, who are interested in the traditional Mass. It is very encouraging!

17. Are there communities that have decided to adopt the old liturgy?
There may be several, but there is one that we know about, in Italy, the community of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, which has decided to return to the old liturgy; in the women’s branch it has already been done. For the priests who are involved in ministry in the dioceses, it is not so easy.

18. What advice do you give to Catholics who, since and thanks to the Motu Proprio, now have a traditional Mass closer to them than a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X?
My advice to them is to ask the priests of the Society for advice first, not to go with their eyes closed to just any traditional Mass that is celebrated nearby. The Mass is a treasure; but there is also a way of saying it, and everything that goes with it: the sermon, the catechesis, the way of administering the sacraments…

Not every traditional Mass is necessarily accompanied by the conditions required for it to bear all its fruits and to protect the soul from the dangers of the current crisis. Therefore ask the priests of the Society for advice first.

19. The liturgy is not the basis of the crisis in the Church. Do you think that the return of the (traditional) Liturgy is always the start of a return to the integrity of the Faith?
The traditional Mass has an absolutely extraordinary power of grace. You see it in the apostolic work, you see it especially in the priests who come back to it: It is truly the antidote to the crisis. It is really very powerful, at all levels. At the level of grace, at the level of faith…. I think that if the old Mass were allowed to be truly free, the Church could emerge rather quickly from this crisis, but it would still take several years!

20. For a long time the Pope has been speaking about “the reform of the reform”. Do you think that he hopes to try to reconcile the old liturgy with the teaching of Vatican II in a reform that would be a middle term?
At the moment we know nothing about it! We know that he wants this reform, but where is that reform is headed? Will everything eventually be blended together, “the ordinary form” and “the extraordinary form”? That is not what we find in the Motu Proprio, which requires us to distinguish the two “forms” and not to mix them: this is very wise. We have to wait and see; for the moment let us stick to what the Roman authorities say.

Assisi III: Part 3

21. The Holy Father has announced the next meeting in Assisi. You reacted in your sermon at St. Nicholas Church on February 9, 2011, and decided to oppose it, just as Archbishop Lefebvre had done at the time of the first meeting, 25 years ago. Do you plan to intervene directly with the Holy Father?
If the opportunity presents itself, if it can bear some fruit, why not?

22. Is it such a serious matter to call other religions to work for peace?
In one respect, and only in that respect, no. To call other religions to work for peace — a civil peace — there is no problem with that, but in that case it is not at the religious level, it is at the civil level. It is not an act of religion, it is quite simply an act of a religious society that works civilly to promote peace. It is not even religious peace being sought, but rather civil peace among men.

In contrast, to ask people to perform religious acts during that gathering is absurd, because there is a radical lack of understanding among the various religions. In those circumstances, it is not clear what aspiring to peace is supposed to mean, when there is not even any agreement about the nature of God, about the meaning that you ascribe to divinity. Really, you wonder how you could achieve anything serious.

[An inter-religious gathering in Assisi - without the distraction of any religious rites - is obviously intended to be a highly visible symbol of the common intention for peace among the major religions of the world. But the only religious rite in which one could possibly imagine Benedict XVI participating would be a Mass he would celebrate, to which the other religious leaders present would be invited if they wished to attend. I suppose the other leaders would be welcome to perform their own rites, if they chose to, in their own places of worship. But their common declaration in favor of 'peace on earth' would take place at a civilian event.]

23. We might think that the Holy Father does not understand ecumenism in the same way as John Paul II. Isn’t this a difference in degree in the same error?
No, I think that he understands it in the same way. He correctly says, “It is impossible to pray together.” [But Mons. Fellay, interfaith dialog is not ecumenism in the sense the Church uses it, where cumenism refers to relations with the non-Catholic Christian confessions!] But we have to see exactly what he means by that. He gave an explanation in 2003, in a book entitled Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions (English edition: Ignatius Press, 2004). I find that he splits hairs. He tries to justify Assisi. You really wonder how that will be possible next October. [Since quotations from Truth and Tolerance have been amply trotted out since the Pope's announcement of an Assisi 2011, Fellay is obviously misrepresenting what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote then. He was not justifying Assisi-1 but pointing out how inter-religious events can be possible without risk of syncretism, provided there is no attempt at 'inter-religious prayer' or praying together, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms. But there can be multi-religious prayer - prayer alongside each other - in which everyone prays according to their faith.]

24. Some Italian intellectuals have publicly declared their uneasiness about the consequences of such a meeting. Do you know of other reactions within the Church? [Those so-called 'intellectuals' - all nine of them - obviously spoke out of line, simply assuming that Benedict XVI was merely going to replicate Assisi-1. I really don't understand how so many people, on so many occasions, seem to think Benedict XVI has no common sense, much less, their intelligence. At almost 84, he is still much sharper than all of them put together!]
They are right. Do we see other reactions within the Church? In official circles, no. Among us [SSPX members], obviously yes.

25. What about the reaction of the traditional congregations affiliated with Ecclesia Dei?
There is none that I know of!

26. How do you explain the fact that the Holy Father, who denounces relativism in religious matters and who had even refused to attend the Assisi meeting in 1986, could now want to commemorate such a meeting by repeating it? [There you go! Simply assuming that he is going to repeat aspects of an inter-religious gathering that he found questionable at the very least! He's not a dotard!]
It is a mystery to me. I do not know. I think that he may be under some pressures or influences. Probably he is alarmed by the anti-Christian acts [recently in the news], the anti-Catholic violence: those bombs in Egypt and Iraq. That is perhaps the reason that prompted him to propose this new Assisi gathering; I won’t call it an act of desperation, but a last resort…. He is trying something, anyway. I would not be surprised if that was it, but I know nothing more about it.

27. Is there a possibility that the Holy Father might give up this inter-religious demonstration?
We don’t know very well how it will be organized. We will have to see. I supposed that they will try to minimize the event because, once again, for the present Pope, it is impossible for different groups to be able to pray together when they do not even acknowledge the same god. [Stay with that thought until we know what exactly Benedict XVI has in mind!] Therefore, once again you wonder what they are going to be able to do there together!

28. What should Catholics do with regard to this announcement about Assisi III?
Pray that the Good Lord intervenes in one way or another so that it doesn’t take place, and in any case start making reparation now! [That is stupid! And I don't understand the FSSPX aversion to any dialog at all with other religions! Their attitude does not show very much confidence in the ability of Catholics to stand up for the faith properly against other religions - and why they should doubt the Pope's ability to do that is truly insulting! There is a place for both inter-religious dialog and evangelization in the work of the Church, but they are separate compartments. Especially right now, when it is more important for Catholics to re-evangelize those who have become secularized, than to 'poach' in other waters since after all, recruitment in the traditional mission lands is going well... And I don't think Fellay can claim that the FSSPX has been converting non-Catholics to Catholicism!]