Author Topic: What was Bishop Fellay expecting when he made this? (Read 1340 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** August 07, 2013, 04:37:42 AM »

The SSPX was clearly planning for a deal and has been acting accordingly:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/DdnJigNzTuY[/youtube]

It seems pretty obvious that Benedict XVI's resignation was some sort of coup or at the very least a change in policy which is obvious from the media reaction to Francis.

ggreg · « **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2013, 06:19:26 AM »

He's giving that opinion to the Novus Ordo Catholic world. Toning down the rhetoric specifically to appeal to that audience just like a missionary might not start off talking about Hellfire for everyone who dies without baptism.

It's stupid to talk about the council being misinterpreted for the simple reason that the people who "misinterpreted" it were the very same people who conducted it.

Those very same Bishops and Popes regardless of what they agreed, or wrote down about religious liberty, went back to their dioceses and implemented the version we see today. Actions speak louder than words.

If Bishop Fellay expected a deal to happen he was very naïve as there was no objective evidence that Rome or Benedict had in any way changed their tune and abandoned their error, or were even willing to admit that the new springtime was a disaster for the Church. I don't think he did expect a deal to happen. I think he felt that given the offer of an olive branch he had to try and put his point across in order to see what Rome would do.

Fellay's huge mistake was handling the PR really badly. He should have realised that the SSPX supporters distrusted Rome and Ratzinger and from the word go played his cards with an open deck.

If he had published his negotiating position and Rome's response straight away on the internet and had none of this secret doctrinal preamble nonsense the reaction would not have been so strong.

But, frankly, he is probably somewhat pleased to have a sweep out of some of the more hardline and opinionated elements. Surrounding yourself with yesmen is a tactic or many a CEO. Many a consulting company, earns a good income precisely because this EVENTUALLY ends up with an organisation that is mired in mediocrity.

Only a great CEO and a great leader can handle these competing elements and keep them inside the corporation.

ggreg · « **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2013, 06:53:13 AM »

Smart CEOs the world over are looking at Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning as well as websites like Vault and Glassdoor and realising that privacy is dead and they cannot rely on keeping stuff secret any longer.

There are disadvantages to transparency but there are advantages too. Corporations that are open don't have to be as top heavy, their tend to be more merit driven and they are more nimble.

The internet has changed the world and leaders of all kinds have to get their heads around it. Just look at how much time some of you spend on it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 07, 2013, 06:53:23 AM »

The evidence that they've shifted their position on a deal, and have been taking steps in anticipation of an imminent deal, has been overwhelming.

The leaking of Bishop Fellay's correspondence reveals that a deal was anticipated and desired.

The motu propriu and the lifting of the excommunications were not done by Rome as a fake-out.

Benedict XVI was in a weak position throughout his pontificate: he paid a political price for those steps.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 07, 2013, 06:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Bishop Fellay to Benedict XVI

It is with consternation that I present to you, who are now beset with difficult trials during which you have my poor prayers, yet another problem, instead of consolation.

Indeed on Wednesday evening, June 13, Cardinal Levada delivered to me, during a cordial meeting, a doctrinal declaration that I will not be able to sign.

Disregarding my request not to revise the proposal that l had sent, because of the consequences that would entail, the new text repeats almost all the points of the Preamble of September 2011 that caused difficulties and that l had endeavoured to avoid.

Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted.

I admit that I no longer know what to think. I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform, much as the Council of Florence had passed over in silence the question concerning divorce on account of adultery among the Greeks, so as to effect a union. With such a view in mind I committed myself, despite rather strong opposition within the ranks of the Society, and at the expense of significant troubles. And I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications.

But now it seems to me that I was mistaken and that complete acceptance of the disputed points is in truth required before going further... If some of my recent statements add a new difficulty, I am sorry, but that too was out of concern for clarity.

Moreover, given the massive opposition brewing in some circles of the Church, which fully intend to make the activity of the new prelature impossible, and given the pressure even of certain States, I do wonder how the plan could be carried out in these circuмstances.

It seems to me that you alone can now change the course of events taking shape. It is obviously not a question of my exerting any pressure whatsoever, but simply of presenting the facts to you in order to know whether I am mistaken as to your intentions concerning our situation. Were you to deem it opportune, at this very delicate time, I make so bold as to ask you in your kindness to grant an audience (as discreet as possible) so that I may hear from your own lips your sentiments concerning our situation.

May Your Holiness deign to believe in my filial devotion and dearest desire to serve Holy Church.

ggreg · « **Reply #5 on:** August 07, 2013, 08:07:17 AM »

Again, the above could be seen as a negotiation technique.

Just how serious are you Benedict? I am sticking my neck out here, if you want this deal done then I need a sign that will be accepted as a genuine mark of good will from Rome. Salespeople do this all the time, as do lawyers and politicians and diplomats. It's a classic negotiating technique.

It could be that Bishop Fellay genuinely thought that B16 was different to Card. Ratzinger and hoped, against hope, that something had really changed. But I've spoken to him several times in the past and watched many of his videos and listened to his talks from years ago and this would be a complete change of mind. He's never trusted Rome and always viewed them with a healthy suspicion.

So it could also be that he very much doubted that Rome had changed but felt he did not want history to judge him and the SSPX for not trying. If B16's Olive branch had been sent back with a curt response, then the SSPX would have faced attack for being schismatic and proud.

I'm involved in M&A work where companies buy other companies and VC firms sell off companies as well as executive level hiring decisions, so I know from experience that all sorts of ideas are floating and trial balloons launched in order to find the right deal all parties will be happy with. This is the way humans are.

When my wife wants a new washing machine I go to the store with her and discuss the merits of the brand with the large door, top loader versus front loader, all in one washer dryer, extended warranties, low energy etc., so she feels she has given her input and looked at all her options. Then I go home and buy a Miele or Bosch, on-line, and have it delivered with no extra warranty. I could do this and save a trip to the store, but then she would not be as happy with the end result despite the fact that the end result is exactly the same.

A while ago these forums were alive with people who were SURE that Fellay was going to sell the SSPX out to Rome for a handful of beans. He didn't though, they were wrong. They misjudged him then and they might be misjudging him now.

Tiffany · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2013, 08:40:09 AM »

Greg nice try to make people doubt what they know.

Secondly life is not all a transaction. There are values we have that should never be up for "negotiation" as you put it. Doesn't matter how sweet the talker sounds or not, some things should never be put on the table.

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** August 07, 2013, 10:10:46 AM »

I think I have become a deal athiest. I will believe that he will make a deal when he walks out and says, "People, we have made a deal."

MaterDominici · « **Reply #8 on:** August 07, 2013, 10:20:31 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Greg nice try to make people doubt what they know.

He doesn't make me doubt what I know. He spells out for me again and again exactly why Bp Fellay should not be leading a Catholic organization.

When you're referring to the leader of a Church organization as having "negotiating strategies", you know something's wrong with that leader.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2013, 10:27:13 AM »

If someone can read ggreg's take on Bp Fellay and think it all sounds quite reasonable, there's something wrong with their Catholic sense.

ggreg · « **Reply #10 on:** August 07, 2013, 11:27:53 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

He doesn't make me doubt what I know. He spells out for me again and again exactly why Bp Fellay should not be leading a Catholic organization.

When you're referring to the leader of a Church organization as having "negotiating strategies", you know something's wrong with that leader.

Saint Leo the Great negotiated with Attila the Hun and Pius XII negotiated a 1933 Reichskonkordat with Hitler.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** August 07, 2013, 12:55:47 PM »

Will there be a deal some day?

I surely hope not but it's not in my hands.

If the goal is not to reach a deal, is Bishop Fellay doing this so the SSPX can become a more well known organization?

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** August 07, 2013, 02:19:34 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: MaterDominici

He doesn't make me doubt what I know. He spells out for me again and again exactly why Bp Fellay should not be leading a Catholic organization.

When you're referring to the leader of a Church organization as having "negotiating strategies", you know something's wrong with that leader.

Saint Leo the Great negotiated with Attila the Hun and Pius XII negotiated a 1933 Reichskonkordat with Hitler.

Yes, but St. Leo the Great didn't write a public letter, unjustly accusing and taking to task his most faithful cardinals or bishops. He didn't accuse them of "lack of supernatural spirit".

Likewise a group of faithful cardinals or bishops didn't write to Pius XII advising him against it, with Pius XII firing back at them accusing them of being foolish, lacking supernatural spirit, etc.

Because that's what happened in the recent case of the SSPX.

We can't forget those important "details".

ggreg · « **Reply #13 on:** August 07, 2013, 02:50:55 PM »

That happened before in the SSPX with the nine. What's the difference between then and now?

Why were "the nine" wrong and the resistance right ?

I am sure Church history is full of examples of people, Bishops and Cardinals writing to the Pope and pleading with him not to do something, or do something he is was doing, with a veiled threat of leaving if he does. The east/west schism is one such example. Old Catholics another.

All that remains is to let a 100 or 500 or 1000 years pass to see if you are on the right of wrong side of history.

ggreg · « **Reply #14 on:** August 07, 2013, 03:01:31 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Will there be a deal some day?

I surely hope not but it's not in my hands.

If the goal is not to reach a deal, is Bishop Fellay doing this so the SSPX can become a more well known organization?

At some stage, one would surely hope that the SSPX will be absorbed back into the Church. In that sense some sort of "deal" will have to be done, even if it is a simple legal signing over of the properties and signing a charter or agreement, but it really depends on the circuмstances.

Presumeably at some future point there will be a Pope who is not a modernist and accepts the SSPX back into the Church, with a shake of the hand, a thank you and a blessing. The Church will still be repairing itself from decades of self-abuse so I doubt the timing will be perfect for everyone.

Modernism cannot last for 1000 years or one would seriously have to question whether truth is mutable. Since the Church is there for human beings with finite lifespans, I would imagine that this crisis can only last 50-100 years worst case.

Even post a physical chastisement you will still have a bunch of uneducated priests and laity in the church with silly ideas. The "perfect time" to come back under a central authority will be 50-100 years after a "deal" actually gets done and when it does get done I can pretty much bet my shirt than some people will object to it regardless of the terms and conditions, because trust has been lost over a long period of time.

Even Bishop Fellay said of B16 in a talk 10 years ago. "we don't trust you". It's on YouTube.