I read the whole article over at Rorate Coeli.

The nuts and bolts of it are that Bishop Fellay said in a sermon at the seminary in Winona that he is ready to accept a practical solution from Rome as long as it comes with no strings.

How this is compatible with the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre (the primary characteristic of which was that there would be no practical solution while the doctrinal issues remained unresolved) is unclear to me.

Apparently it is no longer necessary that Rome return to the faith in order to strike a deal.

Remember, Archbishop Lefebvre held that policy for two reasons:

1) Because the Romans could not be trusted to honor a deal to a community that was working to eradicate the doctrines the Romans were promulgating.

2) More importantly, because the restoration of the Church will come from Rome, not from the SSPX, and he wanted to see signs of their desire to do so before he put himself into their hands.

To this, we could add a third reason: Archbishop Lefebvre was working for the restoration of the universal Church, not getting ghetto rights for the SSPX, and taking his place along side the charismatics, liberals, and modernists; just another contradictory stripe of Catholicism within the great pluralist Church.

But in this sermon of Bishop Fellay, we no longer hear of the need for Rome to embrace true doctrine in order to strike a practical deal.

All we hear is what Rome must allow the SSPX.

So either I have misunderstood the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre which Bishop Fellay claims to have continued, or, I have misunderstood what he is demanding of Rome (I.e., Is he demanding of them a profession of faith, or some kind of repudiation of modernism, or has he obtained some kind of equivalent assurance from them in this regard?).

Short of these two possibilities, it is difficult for me to understand how he is continuing the principles of ABL when claiming to be ready to accept a deal as long as there are no strings attached,  while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved.

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote

(Kreuz.net) The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is fighting "with and against Rome" at the same time.

And in the statement is the CRUX of the problem with the SSPX.
Either you are WITH  the so called POPE and the modern church, or you are against him.  You cant have it both ways

I do wonder why Seraphim thinks Bishop Fellay's stated approach to an agreement wouldn't be self-contradictory, when it's just in keeping with the inherent equivocation of their position.

So you condemn the position of ABL?

Quote from: Seraphim

So you condemn the position of ABL?

What was his position?  Since his sermons have been suppressed (they seem to be offline again) it's hard to study his position and its evolution.

Bishop Fellay's position is not the same as Archbishop Lefebvre's though, that much is clear.

It sounds like you are actually in agreement with my conclusion, then (but perhaps not the rationale).

ABL sermons are suppressed?

How come they weren't copied when they were available and stored somewhere safe?

Tele is just taking pot shots at the SSPX because I take pot shots at sedes and Pope Michael I, whom he views as the true pope.

He seems to be unaware that ABL's positions are well known from his books, and would have you believe his position with regard to relations with Rome can only be found in a handful of suppressed sermons in Menzingen.

Nobody ever accused sedes of being coherent thinkers!

He seems to be unaware that ABL's positions are well known from his books

Well what I know of Archbishop Lefebvre's position, is that his rhetoric is palpably different than Bishop Fellay's.

Seraphim said:  

Quote

Tele is just taking pot shots at the SSPX because I take pot shots at sedes and Pope Michael I, whom he views as the true pope.

Lol, where did you get that?  

Just injecting a bit of humor. :dancing: