Bp. Fellay: “Even if Rome tells us to accept we cannot”

Fellay: “Even if Rome tells us to accept we cannot”

Bishop Bernard Fellay

The Lefebvrian Superior has attacked the Second Vatican Council, saying: “The Council has brought a non Catholic spirit to the Church.” The Society's response to the Vatican's proposal is expected this week

Andrea Tornielli
vatican city

In the next few days, the Society of Saint Pius X is expected to give a response to the Holy See’s proposal, delivered to the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay. The signs being sent out by Ecône, the Lefebvrian headquarters, are anything but positive and it seems unlikely the “doctrinal preamble” prepared by the Vatican will be accepted. (http://www.dici.org/actualites/sermon-de-mgr-fellay-pour-limmaculee-conception-8-decembre-2011-econe/): Last 8 December, during the homily for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, Mgr. Fellay stated that the Order could not accept the preamble as it was, and said: “You will have heard that Rome has made a proposal saying “we are prepared to recognise you;” the problem is, there is always a condition. And whichever way you phrase it, the bottom line is still the same: we are required to accept the Second Vatican Council. In short, the situation is the following: they have told us “yes, you can criticise the Second Vatican Council, but on one condition: that you accept it anyway.” But what we are saying is: “how can we give a criticism in retrospect?” I think this is an honest summary of the current situation.” He made this statement just a few weeks after giving an interview which the Vatican did not take kindly to.

As you will recall, the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is presided by Cardinal William Levada and led by Mgr. Guido Pozzo, asked the Lefebvrians to sign the “Professio Fidei”. This is a requirement for any person wishing to occupy an ecclesiastical office; that is, to accept the essential aspects of being Catholic. The profession involves three required degrees of assent and distinguishes between revealed truths, dogmatic declarations and regular teachings of the Church. The Catholic Magisterium states that Catholics are called to ensure “religious respect of intellect and will” for the teachings that the Pope and the College of Bishops “propose when they practice their authentic teachings,” even if these are not proclaimed in a dogmatic way, as in the case of most of the Magisterium’s documents.

Last 2 December, “L’Osservatore Romano”, the Holy See’s official newspaper, published an article by the theologian Fernando Ocáriz - Vicar General of the Opus Dei and a member of the Vatican delegation that acts as main player in doctrinal dialogue with the Society of Saint Pius X – who pointed out that although the Second Vatican Council did not define any new dogmas and despite having been a pastoral care council, neither of these facts diminish its value. The fact that “an act in the Church’s Magisterium” - Mr. Ocáriz wrote - is not practiced through the charisma of infallibility, does not mean that it should be considered “fallible” in the sense of it communicating a “provisional doctrine” or certain “authoritative opinions.” Mr. Ocáriz explained that the Second Vatican Council has the charisma and the authority of the entire episcopate gathered around Peter and under Peter’s leadership “to teach Catholic faithful across the world.” To deny this “would be to deny part of the essence of the Catholic Church.” In the article, he also explained that “of course not all the points stated in the Council’s documents have the same doctrinal value, and thus, not all of them require the same degree of conformity.”

By presenting its “doctrinal preamble”, the Holy See showed that it was prepared to accept potential modifications or clarifications (though not major ones), to the text, if the Lefebvrians were not sure about certain points. But after the statement made by Mgr. Fellay, talks seem to have reached another stalemate. Rumour has it that in the coming days, the Society could present a new counter-proposal in which it will clearly state that Lefebvrians are not asked to give their assent to conciliar documents that are to do with collectiveness, ecumenism and religious freedom. Should this happen, Fellay may present the agreement as a Lefebvrian victory over Rome and keep quiet about the ongoing internal opposition to the agreement.

There are, however, those who claim that Mgr. Fellay’s public declarations and criticisms were made precisely because of the need to keep a lid on internal opposition. But the aim is to conclude the process by accepting the substance of the preamble. The Holy See did in fact explain that acceptance of the “Professio Fidei” does not by any means mean closing the debate around the interpretation of certain details of the Council. However, it is clear that the Vatican’s leaders are not prepared to give canonical recognition to bishops and priests who do not accept the lowest common denominator required of those who take up an ecclesiastical office.

During his homily on 8 December, Fellay said “the spirit of the world has entered the Church. So we are not just up against external enemies but against a non Catholic spirit that has wormed its way into the Church. This change, this spirit’s intrusion into the Church, became apparent after the Second Vatican Council. It is a great mystery; it is as if the devil had stepped foot inside a sanctuary. One shudders at the thought.” It is like an illness - the bishop went on to say – that has invaded a person’s body.” According to the Society’s Superior, the point has come where “the extent of the problem has become apparent.” And “one has to admit that Rome has made an effort with regards to us.” “But if Rome tells us to accept anyway, we simply cannot.” The Lefebvrian bishop therefore, affirmed that the Church’s problem is not the Society’s dissent, but the existence of a non Catholic spirit that has made its way into the Church.

Fellay’s words echo those pronounced by Paul VI – a Pope whom Lefebvrians certainly did not have warm feelings towards – in a homily said in 1972. In it, he had said: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God. It was believed that brighter days lay ahead for the history of the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Instead, what came were storm clouds and darker days.” In an interview with a philosopher friend of his, Jean Guitton, he said: “What strikes me when I think of the Catholic world is that within Catholicism, a non Catholic way of thinking seems to be prevailing and in the future this could become the dominant force. But this will never be representative of the Church’s thinking. All that is needed is a small flock; however small this may be.”

The difference is that while the Pope spoke of this intrusion during the post-Council period, when the period of crisis and protests came, Fellay and the Society of the Saint Pius X blamed everything on the Council. It will take a day or two for the Lefebvrians to give their response, having taken all the time they considered necessary to give a reply. However, the time has come now for Fellay to adopt a clear position.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/art...

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on December 13, 2011 at 8:53am

Sacri Palazzi

by Andrea Tornielli

12/13/2011

I believe Lefebvre would have said yes

Bernard Fellay

Andrea Tornielli
Vatican City

I recently published an article on Vatican Insider about the now-imminent response from Monsignor Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, to the Vatican, which presented the Lefebvrians a doctrinal preamble to sign last September.

Fellay, who over the past few weeks has already said he could not accept the preamble as written, has revisited the topic in a long homily on the occasion of 8 December, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. "You've heard that there has been a proposal from Rome saying 'we are ready to recognize you,' but the problem is that there is always a condition. This condition, however formulated, is always the same: you must accept Vatican Council II. To summarize, the current situation is as follows: they have said to us, 'Yes, you can criticize the Council, but under the condition that you accept it.' But we say: 'How can we criticize a posteriori?' I believe this is an honest summary of the current situation."

"The spirit of the world," said Fellay during the homily of 8 December, "was introduced into the Church. Therefore we must fight not only against eternal enemies, but against a non-Catholic spirit that has insinuated itself into the Church. This change, the intrusion of this spirit, occurred starting with Vatican Council II. It is a great mystery, it is as if the devil had set a foot inside the sanctuary. It is something that gives us the shivers." "It is like an illness," added the bishop, "that was introduced into a body." According to the Superior of the Society, we have reached a point that "shows the depth of the problem." And "we need to recognize that there was a gesture from Rome toward us … But if Rome tells us to accept, in any case we cannot." The Lefebvrian bishop thus says that the problem for the Church is not the Society's dissent, but the presence of a non-Catholic spirit that has insinuated itself into the Church.

Fellay's words recall those spoken by Paul VI - a Pontiff certainly not beloved by the Lefebvrians - who said in a 1972 homily: "The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God. We believed that after the Council there would come a sunny day for the history of the Church. Instead there came a cloudy day, a stormy day, a dark day." And in an interview with philosopher and friend Jean Guitton, he said: "What strikes me, when I consider the Catholic world, is that within Catholicism a type of non-Catholic thought sometimes seems to predominate, and it may be that tomorrow this thought becomes the strongest. But it will never represent the thought of the Church. There needs to be a small flock, however small it is."

The difference is in the fact that while the Pope spoke of this intrusion in the post-Council era of contestation and crisis, Fellay and the Society attribute all responsibility to the Council. We will need to wait a few days for the arrival of the Lefebvrian's response, who have taken all the time they feel they need. Now, however, Fellay will have to take a position.

I would like to add a personal comment, which is not included in the Vatican Insider article: Fellay is saying -- and thus it is conceivable that this will be his response -- that the Society cannot accept the Council. Some of his intimates say that the agreement cannot help but cause the confusion that reigns in a Church that requires obedience only from the Lefebvrians and not everyone else.

I personally believe that if Fellay's response is a delaying tactic, or he asks for modifications that the Holy See considers unacceptable (the public statements of the Superior and the atmosphere in the Society seem to foreshadow this), the explanation given will be the purity of the faith and the protection of authentic Tradition (which the Lefebvrians feel themselves to be the legitimate protectors of, to the point of passing judgment on the Pope and the Magisterium on the subject). But I also think that the true and greatest difficulty is represented by the very radical positions taken within the Society itself, where a consistent group does not intend to enter into full communion with Rome, because, essentially, it considers Rome not to be in communion with the Catholic tradition.

I very much hope that this is not the case, and that the many repeated, important, and courageous openings of Pope Benedict XVI, the hands extended and the openness shown, will end in a positive solution. I have been asked lately what Monsignor Lefebvre would do if he were still at the head of the Society, confronted with the proposal from Rome after the liberalization of the ancient Mass and the offer of a canonical structure that allows autonomy for the traditionalist group.

I am convinced (and, as always, this is strictly my personal opinion) that he would have already said yes a long time ago, happy to return the Society of Saint Pius X to full communion with the Pope. Let’s hope that it is nostalgia for communion with the successor of Peter that prevails, and not the conviction of those who believe that the religion of Vatican Council II, of John Paul I and II, of Benedict XVI, is different from the one professed up until 1962.