Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: Bishop Fellay and the priests ordained in the new rites
Bishop Fellay declares that the priests ordained in the new rites of 1968 (with bishops consecrated in the new rite of 1968) are “probable” priests and that the faithfuls shall accepts them a priori as certainly valid
A French traditionalist website has recently sent an official and public letter to Bishop Fellay. This follows the interview that Bishop Fellay has been giving to a French website managed by a woman, a psychanalist, recently appeared among the faithfuls and mainly the high responsible of SSPX in France. In this interview, Bishop Fellay declares that the faithfuls shall a priori accepts the novus ordo priests as being “probable” catholic priests, sacramentally ordained. Despite the arguments about the invalidity of the new rite for Episcopal consecration of 1968, and despite the tutiorist doctrine of the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay declares that these ordinations being “probable” it is mandatory to the faithfuls to accept them a priori as actual priests and not doubtful.
These statements being so incredible in the mouth of the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre, the director of the French website, Father Marchiset has sent to him the following letter and published the post mail evidence that Bishop Fellay has received his letter and is aware of it.
This new statement of Bishop Fellay shall be widely expanded among the Catholic faithfuls because of its great consequences for the future of the fight of Catholic Tradition.
Who may accept these statements about “probable” priests ? Why should catholic faithfuls obey to mandatory statement decided a priori ? The question of the validity of the sacraments and the salvation of souls is the kernel of the fight of the Catholic Tradition. It may not be correctly addressed by some vague and mandatory considerations about the “probable” priests.
DOCUMENTS
Monday 9 April 2007
Bishop Fellay in possession of our letter since 03 April 2007
following his interview of 25 March 2007, published 26 March 2007 by the site Donec Ponam.
Bishop Fellay is now in possession of the letter we sent him, asking him to confirm or disclaim the terms of the statements, and most especially the three propositions that were attributed to him in the interview made by the site Donec Ponam “under the responsibility” of Madame XXXX.
It is with the greatest astonishment that I came upon the interview[1] which the site Donec Ponam made public Monday, 26 March 2007, dated 25 March 2007, feast of the Annunciation and anniversary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s call to God, from whom I received ordination in the Catholic priesthood.
The statements ascribed to you by this site, under cover of anonymity by the person interviewing you, would represent, if you confirm them as being your own, your first public declaration, as Superior General of the SSPX and successor of Archbishop Lefebvre, on the grave question of the invalidity of ordinations conferred according to the new rite of priestly ordination as well as on the invalidity of the consecrations performed according to the new rite of episcopal consecration, these two rites having been promulgated on 18 June 1968 by Montini-Paul VI in his apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani.
Having been ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1984, I respectfully address myself to the episcopal authority which you represent, and specifically to the Superior of the SSPX, in order to settle this grave question of conscience posed by this interview.
This question is vital for the salvation of souls, and it touches the heart of the matter concerning the transmission of the Catholic priesthood instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself Sovereign Priest, of a priesthood which is substantial to him.
You are not unaware that, most particularly since the summer of 2005, the question of the invalidity of the Orders conferred according to the new rituals, both sacerdotal as well as episcopal, is a question that disturbs the faithful ever more increasingly because it directly poses the question of the invalidity of the sacraments.
In the replies attributed to you, and in view of Catholic doctrine as it has been taught to me, the following propositions seem unacceptable:
First proposition:
“With regard to the priesthood (...) When a bishop confers the sacrament of the priesthood, even according to the new rite, while observing the prescriptions of the ritual, especially if it is spoken in Latin, the sacrament is a priori valid. (...) the same goes for the episcopal consecration.
Second proposition:
“we must insist on the probability of the validity of an ordination”
Third proposition:
“The faithful, on their part, must hold to the principle a priori that these priests are validly ordained because the invalidity of the ordination remains an exception. They must then consider that an ordination, even modern, is valid.”
Consequently, I must ask you, in conscience, to confirm or to disclaim the terms of these remarks, and most especially these three propositions, which were attributed to you in this interview, I hope incorrectly.
At this time there is a Motu Proprio that is supposed to be making its appearance. This would fulfill the first condition you yourself posed to modernist Rome, and would be the preamble to an accord necessarily resulting in the takeover by Rome of the last international institution still dispensing certainly valid sacraments and transmitting the sacramentally valid Catholic priesthood. For this reason you will understand the urgency of stating your official position on the declarations attributed to you by the Donec Ponam site.
It is in fact because of the firm assurance (and not probability...) of receiving valid sacraments that the faithful come to the Society of Saint Pius X.
It is essential that you respond to this question. If this is not possible and in the absence of a reply on your part by Easter, the Virgo-Maria site will treat this article as it should, which is to say as a declaration improperly attributed to you and which therefore does not apply to you.
In expectation of and thanking you for your response, I am aware of the pressing nature of my approach, and I hope you will understand that it is dictated by a grave problem of conscience for the priesthood and for the faithful whom I must enlighten.
It is essential that you respond to this question. If this is not possible and in the absence of a reply on your part by Easter, the Virgo-Maria site will treat this article as it should, which is to say as a declaration improperly attributed to you and which therefore does not apply to you.
In expectation of and thanking you for your response, I am aware of the pressing nature of my approach, and I hope you will understand that it is dictated by a grave problem of conscience for the priesthood and for the faithful whom I must enlighten.
The arrogance of some people is amazing.
As we pray for the Pope, let us add a prayer for Bishop Fellay, the Pope's loyal subject and defender of Tradition.
If this is not possible and in the absence of a reply on your part by Easter, the Virgo-Maria site will treat this article as it should, which is to say as a declaration improperly attributed to you and which therefore does not apply to you.
As is always the case, an anxious world eagerly awaits with bated breath the judgment of the Virgo-Maria site.
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 918 Location: Guildford, UK
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject:
At the end of the day, it will be the faithful who will decide the legitimacy of their priests and will vote with their feet. In many quarters conciliar credentials will just not cut the mustard.
That's the same BLEEP! site that has "unveiled" the conspiracy by Bishop Williamson to lure the well-meaning closet sedes in the SSPX under his wing by playing the hard-liner only to then sell them out to Rome.
No kiddin'!
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: Bishop Fellay and the priests ordained in the new rites
Saint Catherine of Sienna, Virgin
Maybe I am missing something, but this post does not appear to contain a statement made by Bishop Felley, but rather contains a set of propositions placed by the people at www.virgo-maria.org, with the demand that he confirm or reject them.
I cannot imagine that Bishop Felley would use the adjective "probable" in this matter, for to do so would be to provide no answer at all. "Probability" is not adequate for the administration of the Sacraments.
Henry Davis, S.J. wrote:
CHAPTER VII
THE USE OF PROBABLE OPINIONS
SECTION I: Probable Opinions of Validity
In conferring the Sacraments ( as also in the Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.
Henry Davis, S.J.
Moral and Pastoral Theology
London: Sheed & Ward, 1935
Volume III, page 27
Innocent XI wrote:
Various Errors on Moral Subjects
Condemned by a degree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679:
1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal, or episcopal orders. (Denzinger 1151)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
