Bishop Fellay’s recent interview: A mixed bag

Bishop Fellay 3-2016The Society of St. Pius X has published the full (English) transcript of Bishop Fellay’s January 26th interview with Fr. Alain Lorans on French Radio Courtoisie.

Following are some of the highlights; beginning with the positive.

Speaking of civil society as a whole, Bishop Fellay said:

We have also lost the idea of authority, the need for an authority to unite men’s wills in order to reach this goal [common good]. Hence the need to submit to authority, and the need for authority to remain objective and not arbitrary.

Bishop Fellay is, of course, absolutely right, and the reason is simple; our churchmen from the time of the Second Vatican Council to the present day have ceased to preach (perhaps even to believe in) the Social Kingship of Christ.

Pope Leo XIII said it well:

As no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God.  (Immortale Dei – 3)

No longer willing to insist upon the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, choosing instead to lobby on behalf of the rights of man, it is the Church that is to blame for the downfall of society.

Bishop Fellay went on to observe:

Today in the Church – and this is new – we are also witnessing a time of dissolution in the Church. The loss of unity in the Church today is absolutely staggering.

Yes, and let there be no mistake about it; the dissolution of the Church at Vatican II preceded and indeed guaranteed the dissolution of society.

Asked by Fr. Lorans if the Church, just like civil society, is heading towards a suicide through infecundity, Bishop Fellay answered in the affirmative; describing the spirit from which this disease has arisen:

It is a spirit of independence from God, a spirit that wishes to free itself from the yoke of God’s law that is too harsh or too difficult.

Bishop Fellay provided a correct understanding of God’s law, saying:

There is an important distinction between the law of God and the law of the Church, for God foresees everything, He knows all the circumstances, He knows all the situations men could find themselves in when He establishes the law, and His law has no exceptions: the law of God, His commandments have no exceptions.

Obviously, not all churchmen agree.

In fact, no one human being manifests the diabolical spirit of human autonomy more clearly and more dangerously in our day than one Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

One need only look at the blasphemous and heretical text of Amoris Laetitia wherein, writing under the pen name “Francis,” he insisted that “concrete situations” exist that “do not allow” individuals to abide by God’s law; as if it is indeed “too harsh or too difficult.” (cf AL 301)

The Council of Trent, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, spoke very directly to this heresy:

If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. (Session VI, Canon XVIII)

Not content simply to denigrate the Divine Law, Bergoglio set about in this same document denigrating its Author.

He went on to insist that mortal sin at times “is the most generous response which can be given to God,” and that one can “come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (cf AL 303)

Forgive me for beating this drum so often, but for the life of me I cannot comprehend why holier men than I – especially those in the episcopate – are not rending their garments and crying out for vengeance in the face of such blasphemous lies and heretical distortions of immutable truth; disseminated to the faithful of the entire Church in the name of Peter no less!

I was very pleased to see that Bishop Fellay commented on the dubia (I do not recall seeing him address it specifically in the past, though I may have missed it), saying of its authors:

So the cardinals who spoke out, we can say that they accomplished an extremely important work of public salvation.

At this, let’s look as some of the not so positive parts of Bishop Fellay’s interview…

I was also pleased to see that Bishop Fellay drew parallels between Vatican Council II and Amoris Laetitia, but I am not entirely thrilled with his conclusions:

And following the Archbishop’s example we say: there is a third category of [Council] documents that are not just ambiguous, but actually false…

We say, “In theory, it is perfectly right to state that the only Catholic way to interpret the Council is in the light of Tradition.” But the problem is that once this principle is laid down, they tell us, “That is the way it is, so everyone is interpreting it in a Catholic way.” But we answer once again, “Open your eyes, look around you! That is not what is happening. In theory, it should be like that, but in reality there is a huge problem. The reality is different.”

That is what we see with Amoris Laetitia. You have Cardinal Müller who says, “This text does not go against the Faith.”.In other words, it can be interpreted in a Catholic way. Not only we can, but we must interpret it in a Catholic way.

The problem here is summed up very succinctly in another, all-too-forgotten, principle; this one given no less than twice by St. Paul in Sacred Scripture:

“A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” (Galatians 5:9, see also 1 Corinthians 5:6)

Suggesting that the Second Vatican Council and Amoris Laetitia – each one riddled with errors – can be “interpreted” in a Catholic way is tantamount to commissioning a fool’s errand.

Once those texts are read in the light of Catholic truth they beg for nothing less than condemnation; whole and entire.

Bishop Fellay said, “Those who do not interpret in a Catholic way are wrong.”

Fair enough, but truly we can say that those who fail to apply the warning given by Almighty God in Sacred Scripture about a little leaven are also wrong; indeed, more wrong still for even suggesting that one can be nourished by such texts in spite of their poison.

Speaking of the Prefect of the CDF, Bishop Fellay stated:

Cardinal Müller says, ‘We have not gone through the door, we have not abandoned divine law.’ Officially, this is true, except that a certain number of Bishops’ Conferences have already shown the way out.

We have not “officially” abandoned the Divine Law? Really?

Given that the Holy Ghost will not allow a pope to define and bind the Church to error in matters of faith and morals, what could be more “official” than an Apostolic Exhortation (so-called) addressed to the entire Church in the name of the pope, wherein it is said that the Divine Law is too difficult for some to keep and even that God desires that we should persist in sin? (ibid.)

Speaking of said exhortation, when asked by Fr. Lorans if Amoris Laetitia represents “a refusal of discipline, authority, the teaching of Christ and a sense of sacrifice,” Bishop Fellay replied:

[Note: This is a lengthy quote, but I am providing it in its entirety for the sake of context and clarity, but with my own emphasis added.]

I don’t think it is out of principle. It is somewhat of an unusual event. I’ll try to explain it.

What I see in our pope today, Pope Francis, is a care for souls, but especially souls that are rejected, so souls that are lonely, that are set aside or despised or simply in difficulty. What he calls the “existential peripheries.” So is it really the famous lost sheep? Is Pope Francis leaving the flock of 99 other sheep, thinking he is where he should be, taking care of the lost sheep? Is that maybe what he is thinking? I say maybe, I am not trying to give a complete answer.

Let’s just say that we can see in everything he says that his attention is universal, he does not look only at the Faith. He looks at the homeless, immigrants, and prisoners. And yes, these are people who have been left aside by others, but one does not need the Faith to see that. One does not need the Faith to see that these people suffer. And then you have divorcees. They, too, suffer. And you have us, we are rejected, too. And in the end, we are all sort of in the same category, the category of those rejected by the common body. And he wants to care for those souls. He wants to try to do something.

The problem is that for many of these souls in difficulty, they are there because they have butted heads with a law in one way or another.

So we have a pope who has a problem with the law that hurts some of humanity, so to speak, and who tries to see if there is not some other way – not to get rid of the law, I do not think that is his idea – but to see if there is some other path for them. I’m trying to understand what he does, but it is not easy.

Before reacting to this, let me repeat what I have said many times in the past:

I have no reason to believe that Bishop Fellay will ever bargain with the true faith, or make compromises with respect to authentic Catholic doctrine, no matter the pressure. In no way do I think it is reasonable to accuse His Excellency of impure motives; e.g., the claim so often made that “he will do anything to achieve full communion with Rome.” I think that this is no less than calumny. (So, please, if that’s your opinion, don’t post it here.)

That said, the response given by Bishop Fellay above is painful to read.

Is it truly useful to comment publicly upon what Jorge Bergoglio may, or may not, be thinking as he goes about destroying the Church, spreading heresy with abandon, and blaspheming God?

For me, it is enough to follow the lead of Pope St. Pius X, “leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.” (cf Pascendi)

This prescript cuts both ways; be it with respect to a disposition of good will, or one of ill will.

How can Bishop Fellay even suggest, however obliquely, that one might see in Francis an image of the Good Shepherd – Our Blessed Lord, who upon being ridiculed for “receiving sinners and eating with them” (and let us not forget, calling them to conversion as well) delivered the parable of the lost sheep?

If only we were so blessed as to have Francis “leave the other 99.” As it is, he is Hell bent on poisoning the entire flock!

Speculation of this nature, coming from Bishop Fellay – one of a mere handful of bishops who has the Catholic faith in any semblance of its fullness – is truly dangerous.

In fact, this is precisely the central error of Amoris Laetitia; namely, that one can in some way read the hearts of men when in fact God alone can do that, and worse, imputing pure intentions to those who commit objectively evil deeds.

In the end, I’m afraid that Bishop Fellay’s words (which are heard well beyond the confines of the Society) risk inviting the faithful, many of whom are genuinely confused, to get caught up in emotionalism (e.g., being lulled to sleep by meaningless platitudes like Francis means well, bless his heart…) when our attention must ever remain focused on knowing and living those objective truths apart from which eternal life is not possible.

His attention is universal, he does not look only at the Faith.

The wording of this statement is also most unfortunate; indeed, dangerous, in that it risks lending credence (inadvertently, to be sure) to the Bergoglian idea that “the Faith” is entirely distinct from so-called “concrete situations.”

Of course, it is true that one need not have the Faith in order to see the suffering of persons who are “homeless, immigrants, and prisoners,” but left unsaid is that Francis does not view such situations through the eyes of Faith (for the simple reason that he does not have the Faith), which is why he looks at the SSPX as just another group of disenfranchised souls.

Lastly, I suspect that, in hindsight, His Excellency would like to take back his comment about Francis having “a problem with the law that hurts some of humanity, so to speak.”

I’m sorry, but “so to speak” doesn’t really help all that much…

Clearly, Bishop Fellay knows and believes that God’s law never hurts anyone; on the contrary, it is the way of everlasting life.

In conclusion, these are truly terrible times in the Church. The voice of Our Lord is scarcely discernible in much of what comes to us from our churchmen today; in fact, one can easily discern the voice of the Evil One even in the pronouncements that come out of Rome!

As such, I would respectfully suggest that moving forward it might be best for Bishop Fellay to avoid these kinds of free-wheeling interviews in favor of issuing prepared statements that are more clear and concise; avoiding anything that might be serve to distract the faithful from the grave offenses being heaped upon Our Lord almost daily by the current resident-in-white at Domus Santa Marta.

aka 2017-2

Latest Comments

  1. Danielpan February 10, 2017
  2. AlphonsusJr February 10, 2017
  3. crusader February 10, 2017
  4. rich February 10, 2017
  5. rich February 10, 2017
  6. maryiloveher February 10, 2017
  7. Fiat February 10, 2017
  8. Oremus February 10, 2017
  9. Ana Milan February 10, 2017
  10. Paul M February 10, 2017
  11. Ganganelli February 10, 2017
  12. The Papal Subject February 10, 2017
  13. The Papal Subject February 10, 2017
  14. GeorgeB February 11, 2017
  15. Tom A February 11, 2017
  16. Tom A February 11, 2017
  17. rich February 11, 2017
  18. crusader February 11, 2017
  19. my2cents February 11, 2017
  20. Theresa February 11, 2017
  21. Cortez February 11, 2017
  22. Danielpan February 11, 2017
  23. Danielpan February 11, 2017
  24. Danielpan February 11, 2017
  25. Danielpan February 11, 2017
  26. John314 February 11, 2017
  27. Danielpan February 11, 2017
  28. John314 February 11, 2017
  29. The Papal Subject February 12, 2017
  30. The Papal Subject February 12, 2017
  31. The Papal Subject February 12, 2017
  32. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  33. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  34. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  35. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  36. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  37. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  38. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  39. rich February 12, 2017
  40. Tom A February 12, 2017
  41. rich February 12, 2017
  42. rich February 12, 2017
  43. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  44. A Catholic Thinker February 12, 2017
  45. The Papal Subject February 13, 2017
  46. The Papal Subject February 13, 2017
  47. The Papal Subject February 13, 2017
  48. The Papal Subject February 13, 2017
  49. rich February 13, 2017
  50. Caimbeul February 15, 2017
  51. Caimbeul February 17, 2017