It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:16 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 Extract from Bishop Fellay's April 17 text, and his comments 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Extract from Bishop Fellay's April 17 text, and his comments
Fr. Pfluger, in a conference given in France (l'école Saint-Joseph des Carmes) June 5, 2012, revealed part of the April 17 text which Bishop Fellay gave to "rome" as an acceptable basis for agreement. It was titled "Doctrinal Declaration". Here is what Fr Pfluger revealed:

Quote:
We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.




Quote:
Extract from Bp Fellay's conference to the Dominican teaching sisters of St Pré and faithful, 4th May 2012

Concerning the reply I sent to Rome just after Quasimodo, 17th April, I still don't know what the CDF thinks of it. I quite simply don't know. From what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to explained properly because there are (in this document) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tightrope that if you are ill disposed or whether you are wearing black or pink tinted glasses, you will see it as this or as that. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read it sideways, one will succeed in understanding it sideways.

Extrait de la conférence donnée par Mgr Bernard Fellay aux sœurs dominicaines de Saint-Pré et aux fidèles, le 4 mai 2012.

A propos de la réponse que j'ai envoyée juste après Quasimodo, le 17 avril, à Rome, je ne sais pas encore ce qu'en pense la Congrégation de la Foi. Tout simplement, je ne sais pas. D'après ce que je peux savoir de sources privées, j'ai l'impression que cela convient. Chez nous, je pense qu'il faudra l'expliquer comme il faut, parce qu'il y a (dans ce document) des expressions ou des déclarations qui sont tellement sur la ligne de crête que si vous êtes mal tourné ou selon que vous mettez des lunettes noires ou roses, vous les voyez comme ce-ci ou comme cela. Alors il faudra qu'on vous explique bien que cette lettre ne change absolument rien à notre position. Mais que, si on veut la lire de travers, on arrivera à la comprendre de travers.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:38 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Extract from Bishop Fellay's April 17 text, and his comm
From the same conference of Bishop Fellay, we have the following comments:

Quote:
But now we are being told that we can discuss ... What does it mean to discuss? Can we still protest? Is it still permitted to protest publicly? The legitimate discussion, is public. So, is it necessary to agree on the word discuss? These are important questions ... I think there is a danger that remains. Certainly care must be taken. We must have guarantees. This is what I always said. Before entering, we must have real assurance - as the Archbishop always said - the assurance that we can continue as is. Simply.


Cependant maintenant l'on nous dit que l'on peut en discuter... Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire discuter ? Est-ce qu'on peut encore protester ? Est-ce qu'on peut encore protester publiquement ? La légitime discussion, c'est public. Alors, est-ce qu'il faut s'entendre sur le mot discuter ? Ce sont là des questions importantes... Je pense qu'il y a un danger qui reste. Il faut faire attention certainement. Il faut avoir des garanties. C'est ce que j'ai toujours dit. Avant de se lancer, il faut qu'on ait vraiment l'assurance – comme Monseigneur l'a toujours dit – l'assurance qu'on peut continuer comme on est. Tout simplement.


And then later:

A new situation

Obviously, we are forced to think about it, because it's such a change of parameters that we are not accustomed to this. And of course there is the question: "Is it time? Is not too dangerous to go get it? "I do not have all the answers. They say: "Bishop Fellay has signed, Bishop did this, Bishop has done this. "No. I do not have all the answers yet. I see lines in certain directions. For me, the only thing that matters is doing the will of God. That's it! I can guess a line. I am waiting that it is sufficiently clear. I think it will come. For now, I'm here. I know - maybe you also know - I know that this issue causes trouble, if only because of the question, "but then what? ". So we ask all sorts of questions.

This is a situation so new that it's a little scary. It is quite normal to have a little fear in such a situation. We must have guarantees, that's it! Let's see if they will or not, because if it's going to be suicide, no! We have to have the reasonable prospect that our canonical status can hold water.


Une situation nouvelle

Evidemment, on est obligé d'y réfléchir, parce que c'est un tel changement de paramètres qu'on n'est pas habitué à cela. Et bien sûr il y a la question : « Est-ce que c'est le moment ? Est-ce que ce n'est pas trop dangereux d'aller se mettre là-dedans ? » Je n'ai pas encore toutes les réponses. On dit : « Mgr Fellay a signé, Monseigneur a fait ceci, Monseigneur a fait cela. » Non. Je n'ai pas encore toutes les réponses. Je vois des lignes dans certaines directions. Pour moi, la seule chose qui compte, c'est de faire la Volonté du Bon Dieu. C'est tout ! Je devine une ligne. J'attends qu'elle soit suffisamment claire. Je pense que cela viendra. Pour l'instant, j'en suis là. Je sais – peut-être que vous le savez aussi –, je sais bien que cette question cause du trouble, ne serait-ce qu'à cause de l'interrogation « mais après ? ». Alors, on se pose toutes sortes de questions.

C'est une situation tellement nouvelle qu'elle fait un peu peur. Il est tout à fait normal qu'on ait un peu peur devant une telle situation. Il faut qu'on ait des garanties, c'est tout ! On va voir si on les a ou pas, parce que s'il s'agit d'aller au suicide, non ! Il faut qu'on ait raisonnable-ment la perspective que notre statut canonique peut tenir la route.


http://sisciresdonumdei.blogspot.fr/201 ... rnite.html

So this gives an insight into his thought. He was intending on signing this ambiguous text, then explaining it to the clergy and faithful in the manner that he meant it, knowing that "rome" would explain it to the contrary, and that his opponents would do likewise.

But he also intended to insist on concrete guarantees in the canonical arrangements, which would ensure that "rome's" interpretation could not govern the Fraternity.

This is helpful to understand what Bishop Fellay was really thinking.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Extract from Bishop Fellay's April 17 text, and his comm
A further insight:

Quote:
And for me, it is clear that what happens today does not offer three outcomes, there are only two: either we are recognized, or it's war. This is the declaration of schism, then with acceleration on both sides. This eliminates the quite comfortable situation where we are now. But again, it is not we who are the cause of this precipitation. Sometimes they tell me, "Why hurry?" But I'm in no hurry! I myself am in no hurry!

Et pour moi, il est évident que ce qui se passe aujourd'hui n'offre pas trois issues, il n'y en a plus que deux : soit nous sommes reconnus, soit c'est la guerre. C'est la déclaration de schisme, avec ensuite l'accélération des deux côtés. Cela élimine la situation assez confortable dans laquelle nous nous trouvons actuellement. Mais encore une fois, ce n'est pas nous qui sommes la cause de cette précipitation. Parfois l'on me dit : « Pourquoi vous presser ? » Mais je ne me presse pas ! Je ne suis pas pressé moi-même !

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:59 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.