Best printed in Explorer's "View/Text-size/Smallest" mode
Roniel Aledo / Bishop Fellay attempted Debate
Roniel ALEDO, Captain (Ret.) US ARMY
Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX)
5 February 2005
Washington DC
Bishop Fellay:I must answer you as Catholic who must defend the One Church of God. The conference you gave and was published is full of errors. I must write you to answer and give you WHAT CATHOLICS REALLY NEED TO KNOW. You said you would love to have a Theological exchange, in the Dogmatic field. Well, here is your chance to open your eyes to your severe Theological errors and misinterpretations. These are not “emotional” arguments but Theological ones, exactly what you are looking for!
DEFENSE OF THE FAITH
--Bishop Fellay: “Archbishop Lefebvre said to Pope Paul VI: "We have a big problem. All the popes before you, all the popes of the last century —in Quas Primas, Quanta Cura —have said there is no religious liberty or have taught it only in a very specific way, which is the liberty of the only true religion. Now you are saying the contrary. So whom are we to obey?" And Pope Paul VI answered, "It is not time for theological discussion now." So he did not give an answer.”
Answer: This is wrong. They way Lefebvre or you understand Dignitais Humanae in your private judgment is wrong. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II don't teach contrary to Quas Primas or Quanta Cura, but teach in perfect harmony.
Quas Primas or Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of Religious Freedom. That is perfect and remains today. Dignitais Humanae and Paul VI were against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be Godless.
Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humane? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania under Communist slavery? Millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc under Communist and Official Atheism tells you something?
It is extremely easy: Quas Primas or Quanta Cura against Freemasonry state, Dignitatis Humanae against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.
Had you ever, ever, ever read the Catechism of John Paul II 2108 and 2109??
I bet you never had. So here it is:2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).So now you can see. The “modernist” Catechism of John Paul II goes to Quanta Cura and keep their teaching alive. There is no Moral Freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political Freedom so Communist states do not impose Anti-God teaching.
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. "Quanta cura").“In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Dignitatis Humanae)And please don't forget that Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae:
http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/dignitatis.htm
THEOLOGY EXCHANGE
Bishop Fellay, you said several times you want a Theological exchange and that Paul VI did not answer the arguments of Lefebvre. Well I know about a Theological point that Lefebvre never answered and never had been answers by you or your sect. I am talking about the perpetual indefectibility of the Church. Bishop Williamson said once that the Canonizations of John Paul II are not infallible and the matter requires “no more analysis” (period). Also I know that Lefebvre never answered the Theological points of Pope Paul VI.
I think this is a great opportunity to for you to begin a Theological exchange. Also will be a good chance to “clean” Lefebvre's memory by answer what he did not.
1. You must answer to the FREE INTERPRETATION, the same heresy of Martin Luther. Only the Pope and the bishops in full Communion with him CAN say what Tradition is, what Right is or what wrong is.
No one but the Pope and the bishops in Communion with him can say what is Tradition or what it is not. But still you and your sect tell the world that this or that of the Council or the Pope is not “traditional” according to your PRIVATE judgment. You must explain this!2. You must answer to the heresy of denying the indefectibility of the Church. The Dogma of the Church tell us that a Council is free of heresy when: a. The Pope call for the Council, b. The Pope directs the meeting of the Council, c. The Pope approves the documents of the Council. All of the 3 requirements where followed during the Vatican II, and all documents such for Dogma and Moral were approved by the Pope as Pope, this is Universal Pastor and Teacher of the Universal Church; still you and your sect claim the Council was full of heresies and the Holy Ghost on “vacations” during the Council. In order to free yourself from HERESY you must explain the Dogma of Indefectibility of the Church because Lefebvre did not!
You must answer (in the Theological debate you so much desire!) what the Vicar of Christ Pope Paul VI wrote to the former leader of your sect:“Christ has given the supreme authority in His Church to Peter and to the Apostolic College, that is, to the Pope and to the college of Bishops una cum Capite. . .by their nature, "the charge of teaching and governing… cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. Also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have, in actu expedito ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what Tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what Tradition embraces.Bishop Fellay, here is the golden opportunity for your Theological debate. Please answer us!
With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did.
Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.” (Letter of Pope Paul VI to Lefebvre, 1976)
PEOPLE OF GOD
--Bishop Fellay: "'People of God' is a new concept which replaces the traditional concept of membership in the Church. It means broadening the borders, allowing more people in, or maybe even removing the walls so that you no longer know who is in or who is out. They destroy the borders, destroy what is clear: that is what they do.”
Answer: People of God is the Concept that describes all those that belong to the BODY of the CHURCH and those who belong to the SOUL of the Church (this is that are united invisibly to the Church).
Body of the Church + Soul of the Church = People of God.
“We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory…We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.” (Paul VI, CREED of the People of God).Your terrible misunderstanding of the Soul of the Church (those invisibly united) is almost Heretic and the key to all your problems. Here is some light for you to study and understand:
---SOUL OF THE CHURCH: From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians." (The New Catholic Dictionary, Nihil Obstat, IMPRIMATUR, 1929)Once again for your Theological study: Body + Soul = People of God.
You must understand the principle of those who are invisible united to the Church, it is way before Vatican II and the Paul VI:
--1. Catholic Dictionary, Attwater (Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946): “. .Those NON-Catholics who are saved are in life outside the visible body of the Church, but are joined invisibly to the Church by charity and by that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God's will.”So once more: Body of the Church + those united invisibly = People of God.
--2. THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See) Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY: “If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a MEMBER of the Catholic Church.”
--3.Baltimore Catechism No.3, (IMPRIMATURS: Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885,Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885, NIHIL OBSTATS: Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901)
”Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "SOUL of the church"; that is, they are really MEMBERS of the Church without knowing it.”
--4.THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE, August 8, 1949: “For in this letter –(June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.")- the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who ARE UNITED to the Church only by desire.
--5. THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, 172 : “ If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit DESIRE of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as BEST HE CAN such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to THE SOUL of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation” (172)
The Great Difference
--Bishop Fellay: “Okay, so be a good Buddhist, or a good Hindu, or a good Muslim, and everybody goes to heaven. Great. But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be?”
Answer: The reason is that there is a BIG and GIANT difference!! Good Buddhist are good and good Hindu are good by definition. But a BAD Catholic is BAD by definition. That is the REASON!!
Nothing can explain this better than Tradition:“ There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace” –Those who are the Soul of the Church or are united invisibly to the Church- “Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.That is the explanation and the BIG DIFFERENCE between you, your group and those good Hindus you talk about.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff,” – Just like Bishop Fellay and his Sect - “to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior” (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, Pope Pius IX 10 August 1863)
CAMPOS
--Bishop Fellay: “That's the evolution: he has been a bishop two years and he is already concelebrating the New Mass.”
Answer: The priest of Campos, the Administration with its 30 priest and 30,000 souls do not say the Novus Ordo. You lack to mention that. Also they had never said the Novus Ordo and they will not in the future.
If Bishop Rifan says the rite of Paul VI, he alone, by himself without priest, that is his right and his duty of Full Communion with the Successor of Peter (hopefully before you died you will learn what that is). Here is the reason of FULL COMMUNION:“Some persons have questioned the occasional participation of Dom Fernando and some of his priests in Masses celebrated in the Rite of Paul VI. Dom Fernando is a Catholic bishop, member of the Catholic episcopate, in communion with the Holy Father the Pope. Thus, like every Catholic bishop, even those of a different rite, he must demonstrate this full communion practically. No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751). Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate.Bishop Fellay please read again the points of Pope Pius IX in QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE about those that will NOT be saved:(“Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”). That will help you understand why he participates in the Holy Mass according to the Holy Father Paul VI.If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. These positions cannot be accepted by a Catholic, either in theory or in practice.
Our participation, therefore, is based on doctrinal principles. And it does not mean that we do not have reservations about the new rite, as we have already respectfully brought to the attention of the Holy See. Neither does our participation signify approval of everything that may happen. To be united to the hierarchy of the Church and in perfect communion with her does not mean approval of many errors that grow in the bosom of the Holy Church, provoked by her human part. And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for "ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10.52.61) and also has given "origen to many abuses and led in a certain way to the disappearance of the respect due to the sacred" (Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, Offerten Situng -- Roemisches, nov. dez. 1993, p. 35). Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the "Liturgy degenerates into a 'show,' where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion...with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators", as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized (Introduction to the book La Réforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p. 6).
For all these reasons, we preserve the venerable rite of St. Pius V, but "cum Petro et sub Petro", in full communion.” (Spokesman for Bishop Rifan)
OBEDIENCE
Obedience is Dogmatic and Infallible (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church). The most important about obedience is what applies precisely to you and your Sect: “… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” That is the most important and critical aspect of Obedience because Salvation is not a light subject. Once you died and you have no Salvation all is lost (you must really think about where will you be in 1000 years from now!).
“… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” This is the key to understand obedience. Also “… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation” is the most important point about the DOGMA of Obedience.
If I were you I will really pay attention to “… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” Remember “… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” Is what all is about (SALVATION).“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both Episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” (First Vatican Council. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH)Remember “… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” This (SALVATION) is what you really need to pay attention to.
EXCOMMUNICATIONS
-- Bishop Fellay: “Let me help you understand what "the excommunications" mean to the Society. First, I am absolutely certain that these excommunications have been a great blessing and protection of God.”
Answer: “… no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.”
This is what all is about. Also your “happiness” because your Excommunication is not in accordance with the Tradition:"The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the 'everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."Of course, any person with normal intelligence knows that you and your sect ARE NOT “in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.
We all know you pray in the name of Christ, you profess to have Faith in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we know that you are “willing” to die for the name of Christ, we know you sing Alleluia and Amen, and you have the Sacraments, etc, etc, but still you are NOT in the “bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”. For this reason, your “joy” because your Excommunication from the Church of God is not in accordance with St Augustine:"A man cannot have salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing Allelulia, he can answer Amen, he can possess the Gospel, he can preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation."The “joy” of your Excommunication is not in accordance with Pius XI:"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928)NECESSITY
--Bishop Fellay: “We have answered that the same 1983 Code of Canon Law says that somebody may act lawfully out of a subjective necessity to consecrate bishops.”
Answer: The Supreme Legislator had already spoken about the NECESSITY:“However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf. CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.” (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts)The “subjective” necessity you talk about is just absurd; it is the same “subjective necessity” of Luther, the same “subjective” necessity of Calvin, exactly the same “subjective” necessity of Cromwell, the same “subjective” necessity of Henry VIII, and the same “subjective” necessity of every schismatic and heretic of history.
You just add your name to a long, long 2,000 years old list of people full of “subjective” necessities …those of the heretics and schismatics.
Bishop Fellay, you must keep in mind that your misinterpretation of Canons 751, 1323,and 1324 are not defense against your excommunication.
Canon 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority. Secondly, the superior to whom you and your successor in the sect refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction. Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations. Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time.
Also your argument that Lefebvre acted under grave fear in order to resolve a state of necessity is absurd: all laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator. Therefore a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father.
PROFESSION OF FAITH
-Bishop Fellay: “And you give us requirements; you want us to say that we recognize the New Mass and the Second Vatican Council. We are not going to sign that.”
-Answer: You lack the humility of follow the example of great people such as Cardinal ALFREDO OTTAVIANI:
“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your 'Doctrinal Note' [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)All Councils of the Church must be accepted as free of Doctrinal Error or Heresy; otherwise it is just not being Catholic
“The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)
“The words of Christ 'feed my sheep' are words which have been addressed only to his vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be a exception to this rule, not even Bishops.” (Whitehead, 130, From Leroy Philippe, “Pierre a Parle,” Chevaliers #32, 1976).
ABOUT LIBERATING THE LATIN MASS
-Bishop Fellay: “It means that the law which says that the Tridentine Mass is the Catholic Mass is still in vigor. “
Answer: WRONG!!! Quo Primum is the Law that placed the Tridentine rite as the universal rite of the Latin Church, and Quo Primum was derogated by Missale Romanum of Paul VI.
The Tridentine rite was not derogated but the LAW Quo Primum was. One Law of a legislator replaces the former Law of the former legislator.
The legal authority to celebrate the Tridentine Mass is not anymore in Quo Primum but in the 1984 indult and in the Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei. Also the Supreme Legislator, the Holy See had declared this several times, most recently in June 2001.
“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifices sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did Our Holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent.” (Pope Paul VI, May 1976)Bishop Fellay, with all due respect you are none, as a bishop with no communion in charge of a semi Catholic sect to oppose the judgment and rule of the Vicar of Christ. Also if you need training in Canon Law none can give it to you better than the great scholar Fr. John Huels:
1. Pius V's bull, Quo primum tempore, did not grant a “perpetual indult,” or privilege. This was a legislative act, universal law requiring the use of Missale Romanum in the whole Latin Church, except for those dioceses and religious orders that had their own liturgies for at least 200 years. It was not a privilege for any individual, group, or particular territory. Laws enacted by one legislator can be revoked by a successor (canon 20), as Paul VI did with respect to the use of the Missal of Paul VI. The so-called Novus Ordo, or new rite of Mass of Paul VI, is not really a new creation, but a revision of the previous rite, popularly called the Tridentine Rite Mass.
2. Paul VI's 1969 apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, was properly promulgated as law in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (61: 217-222), in keeping with canon 9 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (1983 Code of Canon Law canon 8). The constitution required the use of the newly revised Roman Missal and abrogated previous law that had required use of the Tridentine rite Mass. The pope declared that his constitution had the force of law “now and in the future,” and he expressly revoked contrary law, including “the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving special mention and amendment.” Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship promulgating the editio typica of the revised Roman Missal contained the phrase “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.” This general formula revokes: (1) all contrary universal laws; (2) all contrary universal customs, except those that are centenary or immemorial; (3) all contrary particular factual customs, but not particular legal customs observed for at least 30 years.
3. It is correct that the general formula revoking the Tridentine Rite of Mass did not affect immemorial and centenary custom. However, the observance of the Rite of Mass of Pope Pius V was not a custom. It was imposed by law. A custom is introduced by the community (canon 23), whereas a law is introduced by the legislator. The use of the Roman Missal was decreed by universal law in 1570, and the Missal was revised in different ways by legislative acts of subsequent popes in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967. Although many of the ceremonies and details of the Mass of the Roman Rite largely developed through customs in the ancient and medieval Church, by 1570 the legal authority for the Rite of Mass was clearly that of papal law, not custom.”
A NEW ECUMENISM
--Bishop Fellay: “…all these measures are no longer used against the Protestants, the "separated brethren." (Now they say we cannot say "separated.") Yet, churchmen declare they will have nothing to do with us. It is very interesting.”
Answer: The protestants had changed a lot since Luther. At the time of Luther protestants were not members of the SOUL of the Church because they hated the Church. There are some protestant who still hate the Church, but most of the protestants don't. Today there is a big chance that good and traditional protestants are members of the Soul of the Church (united invisibly to the Church) and in way of Salvation. Again the key to understand this is again Pius IX.
“ There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace …Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”(QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, Pope Pius IX 10 August 1863)There is a great difference in being a non Catholic (good in way of Salvation) and be ANTI Catholic, those who broke Communion with the Holy See and place the spirit of Satanic Rebellion with the “I WILL NOT SERVE”.
Also Bishop Fellay, don't forget to read chapter XXX of Liberalism is a Sin. There you will get some knowledge of ecumenism. While it is true that the Church before placed its emphasis in the dogmatic Theology and had a real hope to destroy and defeat liberalism with the help of Catholic empires and armies, today, with no more Catholic kings and no more Catholic armies, with liberalism governing the world, diplomacy is the Church weapon to deal with the world. Today the Church places its emphasis in Moral Theology as it is a Holy Right to decide what to do and when.
Bishop Fellay, do you know why Ecumenism is there today?
I will give you a hint.
What do you do to increase the number of members of the BODY of the Church? Easy, you take a pagan or heretic, convert him to the Faith, and baptize him in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You had increased the number of member of the BODY of the Church of Christ.
Now, how do you increase the number of members of the SOUL of the Church of Christ? Hint: You take an heretic or pagan, guide him to be good…tell him not to hate the Church…not to destroy the Church….pray together with him (in Asis if you want)…
Bishop Fellay, what had you done to increase the number of members of the Soul of the Church ? (read carefully I did not ask for the BODY but for the SOUL!)
Final word
Your behavior is not from God. You think you are doing “God's work” in fighting the Church, in your rebel behavior. Trust me, it does not come from God, but from the Devil. You are just adding your name to an infame long long list of heretics and schismatics that the Devil has use in 2000 year to attack the Church of God. Believe, Lefebvre is no more, and you will be no more, the SSPX will be no more, but the Church of God will be there for ever. The gates of Hell cannot destroy the Church and there is no Luther, Lefebvre, Calvin, Fellay, Williamson, Henry VIII, Wesley, etc that can fight with success the Church of God.
You must remember, because your eternal Salvation in game here, what Saint Pius X and other Popes said:“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her... But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone." (Pope Saint Pius X, May 1909)--Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Pope John Paul II:
“I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law”Bishop Fellay, come back to the Catholic Church because outside of this one and only Church there is no SALVATION.
RONIEL ALEDO
CAPTAIN (ret) US ARMY
Knight of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem
Roniel ALEDO / Bishop FELLAY DEBATE - INDEX PAGE HERE
See "Annals Australasia's Un-official Home Page
What's New? at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page