Yes, I am being sarcastic.
In the article linked-to below, John Vennari reports on Bishop Fellay’s talk at the 2013 Angelus Press Conference, which took place a mere two days ago. He includes several extensive quotes. See below for some comment on these quotes.
“We have in front of us a genuine modernist!”
“The situation in the Church is a real disaster, and Pope Francis is making it 10,000 times worse!”
And Benedict XVI…? He was every bit as much a modernist. But it wasn’t as obvious. He “looked traditional” (well, a little bit anyway) on the outside. Which of the two is the more dangerous?
(Please note, I am not making these quotes up! Follow the link and see for yourself!)
“When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God.”
Err… …hold on a moment! Who was it who told you not to do it? And where are they now? God used them as His instrument in preserving you from the agreement you so much wanted. ‘Thank God’ is easy to say, but how have you shown Him your gratitude?
“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
Poor people! After all, fancy imagining that they can understand what Bishop Fellay thinks merely by listening to him say what he thinks! Imagining that they know his doctrinal position merely because they read a Doctrinal Declaration written by him! Since when was what Bishop Fellay says the same as what he thinks? You’re not in his head! Poor you!
“Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012.”
Arguably it ended when the Romans decided to re-write your document in such a way that they knew you wouldn’t be able to accept. And why might they have done that? Perhaps it all really ended on the day when the letter of the three Bishops was made public…
“I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. … So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not.”
That’s strange. I seem to recall reading this somewhere recently:
“The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”
“It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’ ”
“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly;”
‘Correctly’…?! So, not according to what it actually says, then? Only according to what you need it to mean on a given day, in front of a given audience or in a given circumstance?
Do words still have objective meaning, or are we now at the stage where the only person who can understand a doctrinal statement is the person making it, according to what’s “in his head’…? Is this anything less than classic modernism?
“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous…”
Well, firstly, what I have quoted above is an entire paragraph (No.5). If it cannot be understood on its own, then words have lost their meaning.
Secondly, how is it ambiguous? Let’s take another example:
“We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”
An ambiguous text is capable of bearing at least two meanings. That’s what the word means. The above quoted paragraph says that the new Mass and new sacramentary rituals were legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and JPII. That’s not an interpretation, it’s simply what it says. Where is the ambiguity? There is none.
“Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.”
As shown above, it is plain and straightforward. The text is not in the least bit “subtle” any more than it is “ambiguous.” And you didn’t withdraw it: Rome rejected it.
So much for Bishop Fellay’s defence of his own actions (if it can really even be called a defence!) version, and his version of what really happened last year, according to his own memory. Let’s just say his memory appears to be playing tricks on him! He also, according to the linked article, had plenty to say about Fatima and the “scary times” in which we are living. When Bishop Williamson preaches this way, we know he means it because, right or wrong, he has been giving the same consistent message for thrirty years and more. The same cannot be said of Bishop Fellay. He also comments on Pope Francis. It has taken him until now, a mere six months of continuing scandals. Perhaps Bishop Fellay felt even that he could not get away with ignoring it forever!
“In the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I said, ‘the crisis in the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put on the brakes.’ ”
And here’s what you said at the end of his Pontificate (though at that stage, you didn’t realise that the end was so near!):
“If you want another example well we finish with this, an image of what kind of time do we have, or are we in. At a certain moment, towards the end of winter, you see on the trees new buds, they just come out. It’s a little thing there. When you see that, you know, spring will come. But you start to say, spring is there, people will tell you, hey, come on. It’s winter! It’s freezing! It’s snowing! It’s icy! It’s windy! Don’t say it’s spring! It’s not true! It’s winter! And we say, “Both are right. It’s still winter.” And then I say, if you look at the situation in the Church, it’s still winter. But we start to see the little signs that start to say that spring is coming. … But I may say, that’s precisely where we are now. In that very delicate time between winter and spring.” (Canada, 28th December 2012)
More could be said, but is it really necessary? And if it is, what is the use? The hypocrisy and dishonesty are worthy of earning Bishop Fellay a place along side Tony Blair, David Cameron, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and all the other great worthies in the Pantheon of modern politicians. Run away from this. Run far, far away. And stay there. Preserve your sanity, preserve the Faith, and let this be an abject lesson in what happens when we temporise with the enemies of God’s Church and begin telling little white lies to try to cover our tracks.
“That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”
‘And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’ s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?’ (Mt. 7,3)