Bishop Fellay on the Discussions with Rome (Feb. 2, 2012)

[newyorkcatholic]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenge son - "no."

What if the parents then said, "so cut of your own arm."

The son could rightly say, "no ... your wisdom and power is to teach me and guide me and protect me, not to abuse me.  I honor you but cannot obey you in this way."

Then the son would be right!

[TrentCath]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

[SaintAndrew]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

Yes, but we see where Jesuits have this exact same reasoning, when it comes to their interpretation of things - it's just extreme liberal by nature (which sickens me).

If the teenage son is going to say "no" to obedience, he's gonna have to denounce his parents on some of their previous statements, or the kid comes off looking like a brat.

[newyorkcatholic]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

Yes, but we see where Jesuits have this exact same reasoning, when it comes to their interpretation of things - it's just extreme liberal by nature (which sickens me).

If the teenage son is going to say "no" to obedience, he's gonna have to denounce his parents on some of their previous statements, or the kid comes off looking like a brat.

Liberals do not having the same reasoning.  The SSPX can say with a straight face, "we are following what you (the magisterium) has always taught.  Even today you profess to hold to tradition, we are holding you to this profession.  We see contradictions, let us discuss them."

The Liberal Jesuits can't say any of that.  They believe whatever the world says, and they tell the magisterium, "you were out of touch then and you are out of touch now.  Look around at how the world is changing."

The SSPX follow Tradition.  I don't agree with them fully (I actually go to a diocesan TLM), but they cannot stray if they stick to tradition.

The Jesuits were lost the minute they abandoned Tradition for the World.

The *form* of the argument might be superficially similar, but sticking to Tradition is good, following the World is bad.

[TrentCath]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

Yes, but we see where Jesuits have this exact same reasoning, when it comes to their interpretation of things - it's just extreme liberal by nature (which sickens me).

If the teenage son is going to say "no" to obedience, he's gonna have to denounce his parents on some of their previous statements, or the kid comes off looking like a brat.

I agree completely with Newyorkcatholic's argument and cannot make a better one.

I must say though that those who oppose the SSPX appear to have inverted the relationship between obedience and truth and underlining all their arguments is the same fundamental idea 'We must obey Rome even if Rome is wrong', sadly this is simply not true. On individual matters such as decisions in court cases or guidance one may be obligated to obey Rome even if Rome is wrong, for example the suppression of Catholic Action, but on matters of doctrine which by their very nature affect the salvation of souls one cannot be obliged to renounce the true faith in order to obey Rome or anyone else

[SaintAndrew]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

Yes, but we see where Jesuits have this exact same reasoning, when it comes to their interpretation of things - it's just extreme liberal by nature (which sickens me).

If the teenage son is going to say "no" to obedience, he's gonna have to denounce his parents on some of their previous statements, or the kid comes off looking like a brat.

Liberals do not having the same reasoning.  The SSPX can say with a straight face, "we are following what you (the magisterium) has always taught.  Even today you profess to hold to tradition, we are holding you to this profession.  We see contradictions, let us discuss them."

The Liberal Jesuits can't say any of that.  They believe whatever the world says, and they tell the magisterium, "you were out of touch then and you are out of touch now.  Look around at how the world is changing."

The SSPX follow Tradition.  I don't agree with them fully (I actually go to a diocesan TLM), but they cannot stray if they stick to tradition.

The Jesuits were lost the minute they abandoned Tradition for the World.

The *form* of the argument might be superficially similar, but sticking to Tradition is good, following the World is bad.

I guess what I was saying, is that Jesuits can hold up a copy of Lumen Gentium and say "see - this is how it's supposed to be!", and believe THEY are upholding the teachings of the church.
I just wish Bishop Fellay wrote it differently, because to the average Catholic, that one paragraph I previously copied self-detonates the reasoning behind the SSPX/Vatican gap.

The - "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" - part, is making people wonder, "so you believe that to be true and you're not accepting Rome's recent proposals because why?"

[TrentCath]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

Yes, but we see where Jesuits have this exact same reasoning, when it comes to their interpretation of things - it's just extreme liberal by nature (which sickens me).

If the teenage son is going to say "no" to obedience, he's gonna have to denounce his parents on some of their previous statements, or the kid comes off looking like a brat.

Liberals do not having the same reasoning.  The SSPX can say with a straight face, "we are following what you (the magisterium) has always taught.  Even today you profess to hold to tradition, we are holding you to this profession.  We see contradictions, let us discuss them."

The Liberal Jesuits can't say any of that.  They believe whatever the world says, and they tell the magisterium, "you were out of touch then and you are out of touch now.  Look around at how the world is changing."

The SSPX follow Tradition.  I don't agree with them fully (I actually go to a diocesan TLM), but they cannot stray if they stick to tradition.

The Jesuits were lost the minute they abandoned Tradition for the World.

The *form* of the argument might be superficially similar, but sticking to Tradition is good, following the World is bad.

I guess what I was saying, is that Jesuits can hold up a copy of Lumen Gentium and say "see - this is how it's supposed to be!", and believe THEY are upholding the teachings of the church.
I just wish Bishop Fellay wrote it differently, because to the average Catholic, that one paragraph I previously copied self-detonates the reasoning behind the SSPX/Vatican gap.

The - "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" - part, is making people wonder, "so you believe that to be true and you're not accepting Rome's recent proposals because why?"

Not if someone is capable of:
a) reading in context, and
b)knows basic theology

The only people who will be confused are those who believe that truth is subject to obedience.

[newyorkcatholic]

"Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no."
Sorry.

The SSPX is going to need better reasoning than that.

It comes off as this..........

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us!"
Teenage son - "no."

Obedience is subject to truth, not the other way round.

Let us somewhat re-write your scenario.

Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are your parents, we made you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we have supreme power over you."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree"
Mother and Father to teenage son - "we are much older and wiser than you and we are necessary."
Teenage son - "yes, I agree."
Mother and Father to teenage son - "Then obey us, when we tell you to abandon your faith and become a muslim!"
Teenage son - "no."

That is more accurate.

Yes, but we see where Jesuits have this exact same reasoning, when it comes to their interpretation of things - it's just extreme liberal by nature (which sickens me).

If the teenage son is going to say "no" to obedience, he's gonna have to denounce his parents on some of their previous statements, or the kid comes off looking like a brat.

Liberals do not having the same reasoning.  The SSPX can say with a straight face, "we are following what you (the magisterium) has always taught.  Even today you profess to hold to tradition, we are holding you to this profession.  We see contradictions, let us discuss them."

The Liberal Jesuits can't say any of that.  They believe whatever the world says, and they tell the magisterium, "you were out of touch then and you are out of touch now.  Look around at how the world is changing."

The SSPX follow Tradition.  I don't agree with them fully (I actually go to a diocesan TLM), but they cannot stray if they stick to tradition.

The Jesuits were lost the minute they abandoned Tradition for the World.

The *form* of the argument might be superficially similar, but sticking to Tradition is good, following the World is bad.

I guess what I was saying, is that Jesuits can hold up a copy of Lumen Gentium and say "see - this is how it's supposed to be!", and believe THEY are upholding the teachings of the church.
I just wish Bishop Fellay wrote it differently, because to the average Catholic, that one paragraph I previously copied self-detonates the reasoning behind the SSPX/Vatican gap.

The - "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" - part, is making people wonder, "so you believe that to be true and you're not accepting Rome's recent proposals because why?"

I suppose some could be confused.  But if you read the whole thing, or any general statement on the society's position, it's pretty clear.  Rome has authority, but it does not have the authority to tell us to reject a Catholic teaching and accept something else it is offering as a replacement. 

I'm not saying that Rome is doing this in any particular case, but if it does, we do not have to obey - we must not obey.

[SaintAndrew]

NYCath - what does Rome say exactly, that you say - 'no" to?

I'm still learning here, and hearing you guys reason this out is great. 

[newyorkcatholic]

NYCath - what does Rome say exactly, that you say - 'no" to?

I'm still learning here, and hearing you guys reason this out is great. 

I personally don't say "no" -- I am not knowledgeable enough, and I hope Vatican II can just be ignored.  I'm not sure it needs to be officially condemned or reversed.

But, I'm just defending those who take (IMHO) the legitimate position of the SSPX.

There is a thread right now on the major issues on which the SSPX feels Vatican II has changed the Church's teaching and they say "no."  One of them is religious liberty.  Another is ecumenism.

Here's the thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3448542.0.html.

I don't really know much about the specifics.  But I do know that I believe everything Fellay said about Rome -- they have the authority, and so on.  But if Benedict XVI said to me, personally, "Son, only the new parishes that have women priests will be regular canonically and you must go," I still wouldn't.  (Not that he would, but in that hypothetical, I would disobey.)