SSPX FAQs
 
 DONATE
 
 ARTICLES INDEX
 
 APOLOGETIC
 MATERIALS
 
 FOR PRIESTS
 
 CHAPELS
 
 SCHOOLS
    CAMPS
   RETREATS
   APOSTOLATES
   DISTRICT
 HEADQUARTERS
   SSPX LINKS
   THIRD ORDERS
   VOCATIONAL INFO
   PILGRIMAGES
   AGAINST THE
 SOUND BITES
   CATHOLIC FAQs
   REGINA COELI
 REPORT
   DISTRICT
 SUPERIOR'S LTRs
   SUPERIOR
 GENERAL'S NEWS
 

 

Join our e-mail list

   EDOCERE.ORG
   CONTACT INFO

Controversy around
Bishop Fellay's conference

1-18-2013  | DICI

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, gave a conference in Ontario, Canada, on December 28, 2012, during which he stated that among the opponents of the SSPX’s canonical regularization were forces outside the Church, known for their opposition to Catholic doctrine. He specifically named “the Jews, the Masons, and the Modernists.”

The expression employed by the bishop, “enemies of the Church,” was denounced by the media and by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. On January 5, 2013, the US district of the SSPX published a press release stating,

The word “enemies” used here by Bishop Fellay is of course a religious concept and refers to any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls. This religious context is based upon the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in the Holy Gospels: “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30). By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists.

On this topic, it is not out of place to point out that two influential Jews spoke out publicly on Rome’s relations with the SSPX.

On January 26, 2010, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, issued an ultimatum:

If peace with the Lefebvrists means renouncing the overtures of the Council [Vatican II], the Church will have to decide: them, or us!

He stated this a few days after Benedict XVI’s visit to the synagogue of Rome [January 26, 2010, seen in the picture], on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day.



Pope Benedict XVI visit to the
Roman Synagogue on January 26, 2010

On November 10, 2011, Rabbi David Rosen, the head of interreligious dialogue for the American Jewish Committee, declared that an eventual return of the SSPX to the Catholic Church must not be allowed to compromise the conciliar document Nostra Aetate (October 28, 1965) which acts as a basis for interreligious dialogue. “We have already expressed our concerns,” he revealed after an audience granted by the Pope to the Council of Religious Leaders in Israel.

On this occasion David Rosen made it known that Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, had guaranteed that the Vatican II text on the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions was not under discussion. “This does not mean that an explicit recognition of Nostra Aetate is part of the doctrinal preamble that the Holy See wishes the SSPX to sign,” Rabbi Rosen explained, although the SSPX would have to accept it in practice, since according to him “this acceptance is required for any reconciliation.”

Ignoring these facts, the formerly Catholic La Vie, as reported by www.kipa-apic.ch on January 7, 2013, regards Bishop Fellay’s conference as an example of an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

As for the Modernists, whom the bishop also named, it is instructive to note in passing the publication of Nouveaux soldats du pape [New soldiers of the Pope] in 2008 by Caroline Fourest and Fiammetta Venner. Left-wing, pro-gay activists, they show no hesitation in joining the ultra-progressives and espousing the cause of Vatican II, threatened by those they call “hardliners”.


Caroline Fourest and Fiammetta Venner

Sometimes it seems as if Catholicism succeeded in its aggornamiento. But the election of Benedict XVI was a triumph for the hardliners and a defeat for modernist Catholics. How far will this reactionary shift in the Church go? Will it succeed in reducing Vatican II to a firmly parenthetical event? Will we reach Vatican Negative Two?

The expression “Vatican Negative Two” was also used by Christian Terras in Golias:  “50 years after the Council – January 22, 2009. From Vatican II to Vatican negative II.” Fiammetta Venner came to Golias’s defence in the Communist daily L’Humanite on September 11, 2008:

Whenever Temoignage chretien or Golias publish too militant an article, the bishopric [meaning the episcopate - Ed.] takes over, sidelining and slandering democratic Catholics.

(Sources: sspx.org – DICI – kipa-apic.ch – La Vie – DICI no. 268 18/10/13)


More on this topic

Judaism and the Church: before and after Vatican II

Judaism and the Church: before and after Vatican II
...the new approach to be a “common witness” to God along with Jews implicitly demands we no longer speak of the need for their conversion to Christ’s one true Church for salvation. It effectively tells Jews they have the moral freedom to live their lives as if Jesus Christ were a fraud and imposter... 1-11-2013

The Chief Rabbi of Rome’s ultimatum: “Them or Us”

According to Rabbi Rosen, the Society of St. Pius X’s return should not be an obstacle to Judeo-Christian dialogue

Behind the interview of Bishop Williamson to the Swedish Television

 
 
 

sspx.org © 2013                    home                    contact