No Compromise On Vatican Ii: Fellay

[cappie]

We will not make any compromise on the Council. I have no intention of making a compromise. The truth does not tolerate compromise. We do not want a compromise, we want clarity regarding the Council. I would say that we must transcend the Council to return to that which the Church has always taught, and from which the Church cannot separate herself, and in a certain moment we must transcend the Council which intended to be pastoral, and not doctrinal. We wishe to concern itself with the mutable situation of the Church. But things change, and so many things of the Council are now worn out.

I might say that I do not see union even in the Vatican. The problem in the Church of our age is not us. We have become a problem only because we say that there is a problem. Besides, even if we may give the impression of opposing or even contradictory declarations, there are no internal fractures. For example, on the Council, we may say that almost all of it is to be rejected. But it may also be said that what is possible should be salvaged. But we all can never say the same thing.

The Council is a mixture: there are good things, and bad. Even the Pope, when he maintains that a hermeneutic of continuity is to be desired, that he does not want a rupture, rejects the Council interpreted as rupture. - Bishop Bernard Fellay interview, Catholic Family News (click below for full article)

[url="http://www.cfnews.org/bishopfellay-090731.htm"]http://www.cfnews.org/bishopfellay-090731.htm[/url]

[MithLuin]

I'm thinking this is going to be difficult. The Vatican has made their gestures of good will regarding the SSPX - promoting the TLM, lifting the excommunications. They are expecting some gestures of reconciliation in return. Hopefully, the dialogue will go much better than this interview portends.

[CatherineM]

There shouldn't be any compromise on the Truth.

[MithLuin]

No, there shouldn't. But who gets to claim the Truth - the Church, or a splinter group? The SSPX can dislike Vatican II as much as they want, but they're going to be hardpressed to convince the Vatican that the Council was wrong and they were right.

[jeffpugh]

That's a great interview. I understand the SSPX more now. +Fellay sounds quite eloquent.

[Resurrexi]

I think before we think about what will happen in future negotiations, it might be good to note what happened in the past. This agreement was signed by Archbishop Lefebvre in a meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988:

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:

1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.

2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.

3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.


Though, Archbishop Lefebvre later renounced this agreement, I could imagine a similar agreement being signed by Bishop Fellay when and if the SSPX returns to full communion with the Holy See.

[Seven77]

I think that it is ultimately all a test of obedience and humility.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1939370' date='Aug 2 2009, 11:27 PM']I think that it is ultimately all a test of obedience and humility.[/quote]

That's a test many will fail.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1939393' date='Aug 2 2009, 09:45 PM']That's a test many will fail. [/quote]
I guess the biggest question is whether or not the SSPX bishops pass or fail. For the most part, their flock will follow. I'm sure that if they return to communion, they'll lose some parishoners though.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939441' date='Aug 2 2009, 10:20 PM']I guess the biggest question is whether or not the SSPX bishops pass or fail. For the most part, their flock will follow. I'm sure that if they return to communion, they'll lose some parishoners though.[/quote]

There are no SSPX parishes.

For the SSPX to have parishes, the SSPX bishops and priests would have to have jurisdiction, something which they do not have (nor claim to have).

Edited August 3, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1939442' date='Aug 2 2009, 10:21 PM']There are no SSPX parishes.

For the SSPX to have parishes, the SSPX bishops and priests would have to have jurisdiction, something which they do not have (nor claim to have).[/quote]
Semantics. You know darn well what I meant.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939443' date='Aug 2 2009, 10:23 PM']Semantics are important.[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

Only when they actually affect the meaning of the sentence.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1939441' date='Aug 3 2009, 12:20 AM']I guess the biggest question is whether or not the SSPX bishops pass or fail. For the most part, their flock will follow. I'm sure that if they return to communion, they'll lose some parishoners though.[/quote]

They've already failed one recent "test" in obedience.

[Nihil Obstat]

Indeed.