Bishop Fellay rejects Vatican conditions for reconciling split

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 12

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos / Bishop Bernard Fellay

Winona, Minn., Jun 26, 2008 / 05:30 pm (CNA).- Bishop Bernard Fellay, the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, has rejected the terms offered by the Vatican for rejoining the Catholic Church. During a homily at one of his society’s seminaries on June 20, the schismatic bishop said that the five conditions for return were a message to “shut up.”

The reaction from Fellay came after Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the head of the commission which oversees the reintroduction of the Latin Mass, sent a letter to the schismatic bishop outlining five conditions for the breakaway society to enter back into communion with Rome.

The Society of St. Pius X claims to be the true Catholic Church and says that the Catholic Church broke from the true faith with the reforms launched by Vatican II. In 1988 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four traditionalist bishops ignoring a warning from Pope John Paul II. The five prelates were subsequently excommunicated, and among them was Bishop Fellay.

"Rome is telling us, okay, we are ready to lift the excommunications, but you cannot continue this way," Bishop Fellay said in a sermon last Friday at an SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota. "So we have no choice... we are continuing what we've done," the Bishop Fellay said in English. "They just say 'shut up' ... we are not going ... to shut up."

While Fellay sees the recent permission to celebrate the Latin Mass as “very good,” he still sees the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) as unacceptable. "The new Mass is the tip of the iceberg of Vatican II and of these modern ideas." Adding the old Mass to the "iceberg of Vatican II" did not change the reforms hidden below, he said.

Among the five terms set out by the Vatican was the condition of avoiding “the premise of a Magisterium superior to that of the Holy Father and not to propose to the fraternity (St. Pius X) in opposition to the Church.” However, this condition cannot be met if the Society refuses to accept the teachings of Vatican II.

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi French journalists that, “The recognition of Vatican Council II as the true ecumenical Council of the Church and the recognition of the validity of the Mass according to the liturgy revised after the Council are beyond discussion. The five points quoted by Tornielli are referred to the minimum conditions for a relationship based on respect and availability regarding the Holy Father and a constructive ecclesial spirit.”

Speaking about the conditions that Cardinal Hoyos gave to Bishop Fellay, Lombardi said, “The Pope wants to extend his hand so they can return, but for that to happen, this offer must be received in an attitude and spirit of charity and communion."

The deadline for Bishop Fellay to respond to Cardinal Hoyos is June 30, which is also the 20th anniversary of the bishops' ordinations that created the schism.

The five terms can be found here.

Comments: 12

Subscriber comments:

Published by: John Oostrom
Richmond Hill On.Canada 06/28/2008 07:26 PM EST

At one time the whole Catholic Church was schismatic,only bishop St.Athanasius stood his ground and was excommunicated several times but in the end with God's help ,St.Athanasius was proven right!!Let us hope and pray for this miracle to happen once more

Published by: JOE,BURNES
AUSTIN, TX USA 06/28/2008 06:26 PM EST

also the sspx has never been excommunicated. the pope said they incurred it by not getting paple approval for the consecration of bishops. cannon law sat a bishop who tuley believes there is a need may cosecrate with out paple mandate and even if he is wrong but thought there was a emergency he is not excommunicated--even the pope is bound by cannon law.

Published by: jae
usa 06/28/2008 04:06 PM EST

By separating themselves from the See of Peter, now the SSPX finds herself without any head, so goes to obey the Law of Separation, schism breeds more schisms, love lost in the confusion and at the end, chaos...look at the 500 years of protestantism, to each his own pope.SAD very SAD.

Published by: Ariel
Ca, USA 06/28/2008 02:24 PM EST

It's just a matter of obedience to the Authority established by God Himself to which the church and the Successor to Peter has the Authority given by Christ to represent Him on earth and not just any other "catholic bishop".

This is a clear act of disobedience and rejection of Christ's reconcilation. Remember this guy Koher who challenged Moses' authority, didn't have any clue that he's been challenging God Himself who established that authority.

Same as these schismastics, they may laugh and reject the offer all the way to their bank. Pride,arrogance...very sad.

Where Peter is, there is the Church..."You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Published by: Diane
USA 06/28/2008 10:24 AM EST

Bp. Fellay is correct in his thinking: The Pope releasing the traditional Latin mass without addressing Modernist doctrinal issues, is comparable to attempting to heal a gangrenous toe by applying a bandaid.

Published by: A.M.
USA 06/27/2008 11:20 PM EST

What's most disturbing is that EVERYBODY keeps saying these men are excommunicated. Anybody who takes the time to look, not at the feelings or opinions, but at the cold, hard facts of that case, can only admit that no valid excommunication was possible, however mistaken one thinks they were. Let's put it this way... In the USA, they would NEVER let a legal case be handled that way. It would be a media sensation and a scandal for any civil legal proceeding to be so obviously 'rigged'. The facts of that incident are just appalling from the viewpoint of justice... and the media still has not done their technical research.

Published by: Joseph C.
Vernon, NJ USA 06/27/2008 08:25 PM EST

This article is palpably slanted and filled with misleading or outright false statments.

>> terms offered by the Vatican for rejoining the Catholic Church

No one in the SSPX has ever left the Catholic Church. They would be horrified at anyone even suggesting this.

>> The Society of St. Pius X claims to be the true Catholic Church

Utterly false.

>> reforms of the Second Vatican Council

I've seen this phrase so many thousands of times in the last fifteen years. To reform something is to fix or reconstruct it.
Not once has anyone ever offered an explanation of what was wrong with the Church in the 1960s, or why it needed to be "fixed." At the time of the council, conversions, Mass attendance, fidelity in marriages, and belief in doctrine were all sky-high. Where do those things stand now, after 40 years of "reforms"?

>> a Magisterium superior to that of the Holy Father

To suggest that the Pope is above the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is a profoundly un-Catholic belief. I'm surprised that the Pope himself has not condemned this statement from the cardinal.

>> Vatican Council II as the true ecumenical Council of the Church

Ecumenical councils have no power to define (or, in V-II's case, to redefine) doctrine. And no council possesses the authority to do away with the Holy Sacrifice; the Pope (St. Pius V) has made that very clear.

Published by: Benedict Carter
Moscow 06/27/2008 03:03 PM EST

Ryan Sullivan: Archbishop lefevre DID accept ALL the documents of Vatican II - he signed all of them.

This decision by this group of schismatics is typical - in the Church's history, there have been many such groups and in the end, they fade away. As this one will (and by the way, I am very sympathetic to the Traditionalist stance - but not to schismatics).

Published by: David
Colorado, USA 06/27/2008 11:41 AM EST

Rate: Very Good

Thank God for the SSPX. Their rock-solid stance for the Catholicism that made civilization, produced the Saints, and to which millions died for is the foundation society needs today. God Bless them all.

Published by: Ryan Sullivan
Austin, MN, USA 06/27/2008 10:57 AM EST

If Archbishop Lefebvre would not accept Vatican II, in the sixties, why would Bishop Fellay, now? It is very easy to see the destruction caused by Vatican II in the last 40 years.

Published by: Howard
Spokane, WA 06/26/2008 10:37 PM EST

How can the Bishop refuse the offer on the 20th of June if it is not made until the 24th ?? Jumping to conclusions too quickly I think.

Published by: Christine
USA 06/26/2008 07:49 PM EST

Rate: Regular

It sounds like Bishop Fellay's pride is getting in the way of his recognizing the fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com