From April 15th 2012 to April 15th 2013... Is Bishop Fellay credible?

A priest responds to Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors

On April 15th, was made public the text of Bishop Fellay soon to be shown in the Letter to the friends and benefactors of the Fraternity. If we look at the text isolated, it is firm as it consists primarily of quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Fellay recognized the "present analysis" of our founder who is still "the conductor wire of his doctrinal position and action" in the Fraternity. "His very fair perception, theological and practical, continues to be valid." The profession of faith which opens the famous statement of November 21st, 1974 "is also of all members of the Fraternity." In short, "currently, following the same line, we can not do more than repeat what Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Schmidberger affirmed after him. All the errors they denounced, we denounce". Wow, may this serve to appease the most suspicious!

But ... if you consider this text, not as an isolated text but in the current context of Tradition, we can not but ask ourselves: Is Bishop Fellay credible? Or more precisely, should we believe Bishop Fellay in his statement of April 15th, 2012 or in his statement of April 15th, 2013? From the one April 15th [2012] to another [2013], the contrast is startling. "The analysis of Monsignor Lefebvre" is truly being "the conductor wire of the doctrinal position and action" of the Superior General of the Society in 2012? "The situation of the Church is virtually unchanged" at Easter of 2013: that's not what we read in the editorial of Cor Unum of March 2012.

So how should one understand the text of the last April? Can we not fear that this shift to the right is intended to reassure and put to sleep those who still resist the policy of adherence to Rome? In order to Bishop Fellay again be credible, three conditions are necessary:

1. A sincere and unequivocal  mea culpa: Bishop Fellay acknowledged that "the Fraternity found itself in a delicate position (what a euphemism!) during a great part of 2012" (what now?), But immediately explained that the difficulties came from the "demands" and "lack of clarity" of Rome. The Superior General and the headquarter wouldn't have anything to do with it? It is indispensable that Bishop Fellay explicitly retract certain writings and certain events of last year: among many others, we'll simply quote the shameful April 14th response to the three bishops, the scandalous Statement of 15th, the painful statement of the General Chapter, the odious sanctions that have fallen upon a bishop, priests (exiled or expelled) and religious (ordinations delayed) ...

2. The solemn affirmation, in a statement addressed simultaneously to the Holy See and the bishops, priests and faithful of Tradition, the principle of: "no practical deal without doctrinal agreement". Carefully specifying the meaning of words in order to avoid any ambiguity or imagination of a "doctrinal agreement" for the simple fact that Rome accepts us as we are.

3. The firm and public criticism of todays Rome and its current pope. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't rejoice denouncing the errors, but did not hesitate to attack, respectfully but vigorously, the abettors of errors, not only the bishops, but even the pope. Towards the end of his text, Bishop Fellay seems to quietly and timidly criticize (without daring to name it) pope Francis, but do not denounces the numerous scandals that have marked the first few weeks of his pontificate. And DICI reintroduces us the story of Aeneas and Pio, comparison attempted by Fr. Celier in relation to Benedict XVI in 2005. After eight years, the number of "pink eyeglass wearers" have grown terribly.

We conclude proposing in a loud voice what many priests and faithful think silently: when a Superior puts a work entrusted to him in so much danger, it is convenient after having recognized his mistakes, to resign his office. This is at least one "desirable condition" to save the little part remaining healthy in the Fraternity [St. Pius X]. It better be a "sine qua non" condition.


Nenhum comentário: