[Bishop] Fellay’s “conditions”
While the Holy See waits for a response from the Lefebvrians, it is prepared to discuss pastoral and disciplinary questions but not doctrinal ones
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city
9/17/12
The letter which the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, sent in response to the doctrinal preamble presented to him in the Vatican last 13 June, has not yet reached Rome. “The ball is clearly in the Fraternity’s court,” Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi had said this after the meeting. Everyone was aware that it was unlikely a response would have been sent before the Lefebvrian General Chapter held at the beginning of July. And even though over three months have gone by since the doctrinal document was handed to the Fraternity, the Holy See seems to be in no rush at all.
Following the meeting on 13 June, the Pope chose a new leader for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (the Vatican body responsible for dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X): Archbishop Ludwig Müller replaced resigning cardinal William Levada as Prefect, while Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia was appointed Vice-President of the “Ecclesia Dei” Commission. So the figures Fellay will be exchanging views with will not be the same as those he met with three months ago.
The Holy See is well aware of how delicate the situation within the Society of St. Pius X is: it knows about the group that opposes an agreement with Rome, just as it knows about the (not so small) group of priests that does not want to suffer the consequences of the extreme choices of some. There is disquiet in some Lefebvrian districts in Latin America and Bishop Richard Williamson who is awaiting sentence is already on a collision course with Fellay. It is highly unlikely the Vatican will ask the Society of St. Pius X for a response to the preamble before October.
Readers may recall that last June, Fellay received a draft proposal for the canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, by making the Fraternity a personal prelature. He received this in addition to the doctrinal preamble prepared by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by the Pope, containing some modifications proposed by the Lefebvrian Superior himself, some of which he did not fully agree with.
Vatican Insider has learnt that Fellay’s much anticipated response should still be interlocutory and contain certain conditions. If these involve requests that are to do with pastoral matters or discipline, the Holy See is willing to take these into consideration. Some conditions were discussed following the July chapter. The first three were considered “absolute” and were to do with the “freedom to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” The second condition involved the “exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962,” whilst the third requires “the guarantee of at least one bishop.” Other less binding conditions included the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of the first instance and the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the diocesan bishops.
Agreement can be reached on most points and the Holy See is prepared to discuss these and incorporate changes in the draft about the future canonical normalisation of the Society of St. Pius X. What are not subject to discussion are the doctrinal issues outlined in the preamble. Lefebvrians are required to accept the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Therefore, although they will be allowed to celebrate mass using the old Missal (an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite), they will still have to recognise that the ordinary form was introduced as a result of the post-Conciliar reform, whose validity and lawfulness is unquestionable.
I’m surprised that the pope and the cardinals can even get into the Vatican these days! What with all the “knowledgeable insiders” filling it up. Among which, Andrea Tornielli …
who might want to be look into a PR career with the Houston Astros if the IT economy tanks. : – )
( Although, kudos to Tornielli for riding shotgun with HH Benoit to Beirut. He may not be the star of the stock pickers over there in ever sunny Nova Roma, but THAT little journalistic feat DID require some serious intestinal fortitude. )
I agree.
Most of AT’s sources seem to be more interested in bending the spoon.
I always have my salt-lick handy when I read his articles.
Fr. Chazal should lead the SSPX in these discussions….I used to chauffeur him around in NY…To listen to him talk about the errors of so-called religious liberty and the separation of Church and state is to be convinced…That’s what Rome needs to hear..The Syllabus of Errors over and over again until they get it…A drunken father doesn’t need to hear how nice his suit looks..
Huzzah!
Charlotte Bill has really hit on something totally fundamental.
We’ve been approaching sunny Nova Roma all wrong!
We’ve been giving them an opportunity to “respond” to facts – with which their minds are LITERALLY INCAPABLEof dealling!!!!!
Modernism IS a mental disorder. A real one. These poor fellers need a 10 step or 12 step ( I don’t know which one the druggies and drunks use? ) BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN BEGIN TO FUNCTION!
I can see it now….
“Hi, I’m Hans and I’m an ecumenist.”
“Hi, Hans.”
What you don’t think Rome heard this during the doctrinal discussions ?
I’ve been listening to Fr. Chazal’s sermons, including the ones from the Philippines and its sad to say that he’s just hung up on the same stuff that’s been refuted already. He and Fr. Pfeiffer seem to cling to it and even invent new stuff (he has issue with an picture on DICI of NO ordinations because it came before the traditional ones in Econe – seriously ?) as reasons to be disobedient and alarmed. Its very sad. I’ve seen this before with other priests who left; they get hung up on something, every sermon is a condemnation of the same superiors and a rehashing of the same theme over and over again and little by little they start to lose it: spiritually and sometimes even mentally. They get so caught up in their own crusade that they become extreme and end up in a few years on the fringe somewhere ( or even out of the priesthood.) I’m sorry to say with each sermon I listen to the same pattern appears to be repeating itself here.
The devil concentrated on them because they were good knights and instruments; he found the chink in their armor and penetrated it. Instead of following the Rules for the Discernment of Spirits ( as they used to preach to us on retreat) they have gone the way of agitation and dissent. By their fruits you shall know them; Fr. Chazal is talking like they are the only hope left for the Church – if that be so the Holy Ghost will be with them. However, I suspect this is really not the case and we shall see in a few years what the results are – if their work has grown or if it has withered and died.
It’s Bernie the Rat or Bernie the Weak Link…He Who Should Never Have Been Consecrated a Bp…who needs to go and the the 50 good priests need to come back…
Dude, you are going to be doing some serious purgatory time for disrespectful comments like that. Your comments are not unlike our Sedevacantist friends who mock the current and past popes ( modernists they were/are, they still are the Vicar of Christ) with similar wording. Kyrie Elesion.
People have sensed a growing spiritual cancer in the SSPX….beginning around the time that Bp Fellay started publicly disrespecting, harassing and abusing Bp williamson…and ignoring the other 3 bishops…It’s a cancer of cowardice, of deal-making and a growing tyranny of moderation to make a good show for New Rome…
Regardless, Bill, your comments comments would improve with a little Charity and respect for those in Holy Orders. I certainly do NOT think that Pope John Paul II was a suitable candidate for Beatification, and there is much in the history of his papacy that objectively has to be condemned, but that does not give me the right to give him rude titles. Name calling is unproductive, and unnecessary. It also destroys all of your credibility on this site.
It’s how I feel so I couldn’t care less….Why is it always the dozens of priests expelled for questioning the Sup Gen that have been “taken in by the Devil”?! why don’t these people question Fellay in the middle of his second 12-yr term? I could be as polite as Miss Manners but the same people will always defend Fellay and everything he does simply bc he’s the Sup Gen…that’s wrong..
Aside from the fact that the pope has just recently appointed men to top positions who hate us and don’t sound remotely Catholic in the things they say, I certainly don’t understand these “conditions” at all. It is taxing for the 4 bishops we have to accomplish all of the travel they have to do to bring the sacraments to the countries the SSPX operates in. How can that be accomplished by one bishop? And what about this business of being at the mercy of the diocesan bishops?
I don’t like the imprudent and disrespectful things that NC Bill is saying, and I abhor the way that some are referring to Bishop Fellay as Bernie, how dare they? But still, Archbishop Lefebvre left us 4 bishops and our own superiors because he thought they were essential.
Having been a faithful of the SSPX for 30+ years and having seen priests and faithful leave because they got “hung up” on things that seemed non-essential at the time; this is the first time I think there have been some truly frightening possibilites being considered by the leadership. We are obviously not out of the woods yet and need to bombard Heaven with rosaries.
It’s OK for Bp Fellay to disrespect Bp williamson and the priests under him…but not OK for people to disrespect him…amazing..You people sit at your keyboards and pontificate about “obedience” and “respect”…Bp Fellay isn’t playing parlor games here….He’s expelling dozens of good priests simply because they’re chafing at his dictatorial, heavy-handed and disrespectful management style…Good priests…expelled..Souls not being served…And they’re being expelled for daring to question a possible ( likely at one point ) sellout…Please, spare me…He certainly wasn’t/is expelling these good priests because he had NO intention of signing the awful deal that was proposed…That defies common sense.( He just didn’t expect so much push-back )..We’re short priests and for him to treat good priests like this is the real scandal…He’s gone so far as to tell people not to even bring priests like Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal food! I’m fed up with him taking books out of the catalog by the Archbp, Fr Fahey and such…He’s gone from incompetent to damaging…I’m Catholic, I’m used to being on the losing side…but bad leadership? I can’t take that anymore…
Charlotte Bill,
I have to agree with Rosariel. Even if all these things you say about +Fellay are true (I believe some may be) to refer to HE as “Bernie the rat” or whatever else you have said is at the very least disrespectful. HE is a bishop, consecrated by Archbishop Lefebrve to God. Are we to start disrespecting the Pope as well? Absolutely not. We must respect the office given by God.
One of the main reasons the Church has been so compromised is that we as catholics tend to give those in authority the benefit of the doubt, and blind obedience, long after they’ve shown themselves to be unworthy of such…Bp fellay has become a perfect example of this.
I don’t disagree with you there.