From Menzingen: A New Interview with Bishop Fellay

Vigil of the Feast of St. Nicholas

 

Article published by DICI, our comments below.

N.B. Due to the length of the interview, it is not transcribed in this post.

Fellay begins the interview with the obligatory shout out to “Pope Emeritus” Ratzinger by mentioning the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the positive effect it had on the Franciscan Immaculata.  He slyly intimates that this same Motu Proprio caused them to pose certain questions about the council.  This is probably objectively true, since the Old Mass inspires such awe in any half aware person that they can't possibly fathom it being the product of the same Church that gave us the Novus Ordo (hint: it wasn't!).  Nevertheless, understanding that Ratzinger's SP was a political maneuver in the spirit of the “hermeneutic of continuity” to integrate the TLM into the VII religion, we know that it was certainly not intended to sow dissent against the Council, quite the contrary.

Fellay then pits Francis against his buddy Ratzinger when he claims that Francis' action against the Immaculata in restricting their use of the TLM is “directly contrary to the Motu Proprio, which spoke about a right [to celebrate the TLM].”  Is this how far the leader of the largest traditional group in the world has sunk?  Citing conciliar documents to enforce the TLM as a right?  Quo Primum, anyone?  The traditional faith is not promoted by conciliar documents, and these are dark times when the SG of the SSPX attempts to do so.

Throughout this interview, it can be very difficult to ascertain just exactly what Fellay's point is.  He seems to be thinking out loud.  For example, he begins this interview with a moderate lauding of Ratzinger, and shortly afterward says that “Obviously, the attitude [of Francis] is not the same [as the attitude of Benedict]. The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same!” This is true to a certain degree as it's apparent that Ratzinger “valued” (however arbitrarily, and if entirely for the wrong reasons) ceremony and tradition, whereas Francis is a true child of VII, and cannot seem to abide that which is not novel; nevertheless, we should not pretend as if these men are cut from different cloths.  They are not, and Fellay even acknowledges this later in the interview when he says 

“We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same. The basic lines remain the same. On the surface there are variations: one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme! The basic assertions: we find them, for example, about the Council [he goes on to mention the different ways the VII popes will explain the Council].” 

Which is it, Bishop Fellay?  Is Bergoglio is radical departure from Ratzinger, or are they both saying the same thing in different ways?

It should be apparent by now (hopefully it was already, dear reader!) that Fellay has fallen quite far from the tree as concerns the great Archbishop Lefebvre.  He says: “Perhaps I should have said [Francis is] a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.”  OK... what's the old saying? Bishop Fellay speaks louder than actions?  No, that's not it. Hmm... Oh!  Actions speak louder than words, yes.  Has the Church condemned heretics only when they had “coherent systems?  Whatever distinction Fellay hopes to make here is not clear at all, only that he is trying to back step once again from his comments several months ago where he called Francis a “genuine modernist.”

The most difficult thing to stomach is that Fellay is making it abundantly clear that he has no idea what a modernist is (or if he does, he refuses to recognize it)! This is the superior general of the world's largest traditional priestly society, named after the hammer of modernists, and he couldn't pick one out if one whispered in his ear.  For, preceding this weak retraction of the only worthy thing he's publicly said in the last year, he admits:

“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins.  All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders!  But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."

*Ahem*

That is textbook modernism.

“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist (Pascendi, no 18).”

Time to smell the coffee, Bishop Fellay.  Your very description of Francis is tantamount to calling him a modernist!

He also makes two claims in particular which trouble us, as concern the teaching role and authority of the pope and the Church.  He speaks of the “muddling” of what is doctrine and what is the pope speaking as a private theologian.   Well, if this “muddling” contains error, we cannot take solace in either instance!  Just because a true pope could never promulgate or approve a harmful or erroneous law, discipline, liturgy, etc. for the Church does not mean that he can express all the heresy that he likes as a “private theologian” when he speaks publicly!   There is some confusion here, probably based on the idea of the pope as a “private theologian” and thinking that errors or heresies in such a capacity are therefore “private,” but this isn't true.  When Francis tells the world that there is no Catholic God, he is not “saved” from the effects of such an heresy simply because he's not making a law or commanding that others believe it.  Along the same lines, Fellay remarks “Faith and morals are the two points that the Church teaches and where infallibility can be invoked.”  To say such a thing would lead us to conclude that the Church, in Her magisterium, can teach error on faith or morals. The Church's magisterium does not “invoke” infallibility, it is infallible.   The Church is a benevolent mother and the Spotless Bride of Christ, and can therefore never feed Her children stones when they ask for bread. The idea that the Church “can” invoke infallibility on faith and morals as concerns the magisterium (is that what Fellay is referring to? Who knows) is preposterous, and eventually turns the deposit of faith into a cafeteria line of options.

The last part of the interview that concerns us regards Fellay's comments on the TLM and the purpose of the SSPX.  He says that the primary purpose of the SSPX is the Mass. He says “The Mass really is the pump that distributes throughout the Mystical Body the graces merited on the Cross.”  True enough, but it is the faith that informs the Mass! The undermining of the faith by the modernists in the seminaries in the first half of the twentieth century and at VII occurred before the widespread and universal use of the bastard liturgy.  The Mass proceeds from the faith, and the Mass perpetuates the faith.  It is entirely possible to have the Mass without the integral faith, as we see with the indult groups, where men are trained to perform the ceremonies (perhaps even quite beautifully) but with little to no concern as to whether they know the doctrines it expresses, or even whether or not they are properly ordained! The world lost the faith before it lost the mass.

All in all, there is nothing particularly new to us in this interview.  It may simply serve as a reminder that leopards do not change their spots.  Fellay's unwarranted attraction to Ratzinger is still apparent, and we can only imagine the "heartbreak" he's experiencing at now having the thin veil of traditionalism that surrounded the Novus Ordo papacy during Ratzinger's occupation ripped off, stomped on, and then danced on (and maybe had a dreidel spun on it's rags?). The New Church and its pimps are full of disdain and contempt for the Catholic religion. If Fellay were to emulate them in something, instead of it being their double speak and confusing manner, have him direct that same attitude towards their unwelcome and hostile innovations. God help us.