http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201931.htm

FELLAY-SSPX May-11-2012 (730 words) With photos. xxxi

Traditionalist leader says group could divide over unity with Rome

By Francis X. Rocca
Catholic News Service

MENZINGEN, Switzerland (CNS) -- The leader of a breakaway group of traditionalist Catholics spoke in unusually hopeful terms about a possible reconciliation with Rome, but acknowledged significant internal resistance to such a move, which he said might lead to the group splitting apart.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, spoke to Catholic News Service May 11 at the society's headquarters in Switzerland about the latest events in more than two years of efforts at reconciliation with the Vatican.

The society effectively broke with Rome in 1988, when its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained four bishops without the permission of Blessed John Paul II in a protest against modernizing changes that followed the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65.

In April the society responded to a "doctrinal preamble" stipulating the group's assent to certain church teachings, presumably including elements of the teaching of Vatican II, as a prerequisite for reconciliation. The Vatican has yet to respond, but the director of the Vatican press office initially described the latest position as a "step forward."

The society is hardly united behind its leader's position, however. In April, according to a letter which surfaced on the Internet May 10, the society's other three bishops warned Bishop Fellay that the Vatican's apparent offer to establish the group as a personal prelature -- a status currently held only by Opus Dei -- constituted a "trap," and urged him to say no.

"There are some discrepancies in the society," Bishop Fellay told CNS. "I cannot exclude that there might be a split."

But the bishop defended his generally favorable stance toward the Vatican's offer against the objections of his peers.

"I think that the move of the Holy Father -- because it really comes from him -- is genuine. There doesn't seem to be any trap," he said. "So we have to look into it very closely and if possible move ahead."

He cautioned, however, that the two sides still have not arrived at an agreement, and that unspecified guarantees from the Vatican are still pending. He said the guarantees are related to the society's traditional liturgical practices and teachings, among other areas.

"The thing is not yet done," the bishop said. "We need some reasonable understanding that the proposed structure and conditions are workable. We are not going to do ѕυιcιdє there, that's very clear."

Bishop Fellay insisted the impetus for a resolution comes from Pope Benedict XVI.

"Personally, I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer," he said, "but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now."

Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope's efforts to correct "progressive" deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. "Very, very delicately -- he tries not to break things -- but tries also to put in some important corrections," the bishop said.

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"

Insisting that "we don't want to be aggressive, we don't want to be provocative," Bishop Fellay said the Society of St. Pius X has served as a "sign of contradiction" during a period of increasing progressive influence in the church. He also allowed for the possibility that the group would continue to play such a role even after reconciliation with Rome.

"People welcome us now, people will, and others won't," he said. "If we see some discrepancies within the society, definitely there are also (divisions) in the Catholic Church."

"But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it."

END

It is Bishop Fellay and others who have betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre.

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said. "The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?"

Strikingly sympathetic: why not "alarmingly complicit terms?"

What kind of "hope" is it when an ostensibly traditional bishop "would hope"
that "Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition?" Does he also "hope" that
the fallen angels have another chance for salvation? Why stop with Vatican II?

"These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely."

Bishop Fellay has lost it. The Society has to take action to uproot this bad weed
and cast him out to the exterior darkness, where there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth. Enough is enough.

The devil has succeeded in splitting the SSPX, using Fellay as a WEDGE.

 

Whatever kind of deal is announced, whatever happens with Rome, a massive change has occurred in the attitudes and beliefs of the SSPX leadership. Just look at the changes in speech in the past 10-15 years.

The SSPX is beginning a downward slide; they are starting to fail in their leadership of the Catholic resistance to modernism and Vatican II.

Sad, but we must acknowledge the truth.

Just listen to what the current SG is saying! He has completely changed his tune. It reminds one of the leaders of Campos (post-reconciliation) or some other "conservative" Novus Ordo bishop.

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: s2srea

This man (+Fellay) is a walking contradiction.

Good riddance.  The wheat is being separated from the chaff.

Who is the chaff ?

Bishop Fellay and his companions, namely Fr Pfluger, Fr Nely, Maximilian Krah, and anybody who goes along with Menzingen's scheme.

Quote from: s2srea

This man (+Fellay) is a walking contradiction.

Good riddance.  The wheat is being separated from the chaff.

Exactly!

Finally. Front lines are clear. The final battle can begin.

Just a few days ago I spoke with a SSPX priest with excellent long time insight into the SSPX and he told me that a split of the SSPX is the only rescue to save the heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre before the modernists INSIDE it have destroyed it completely.

Fear not! God will always have the last word and by his grace we will continue to have real shepherds (like Bishops Williamson and his allied bishops and priests).

Sanct Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us.



P.S. Is that harassing fire from the liberal pro BpF camp (Bobby & Co) really necessary on a traditional catholic forum? Go play at a modernist place, there's plenty of! Leave us alone to discuss the real matters.

And the chaff was separated....

Yes, and "The battle lines have been drawn."

Frankly, the time for "open discussion" on this issue has passed. Anyone who ignores plain evidence like:

* The official words of the current SG (above)
* The compelling arguments of the THREE Bishops against a deal
* The compelling evidence of Modernism, Subjectivism and anti-Tradition in Rome today
* The post in the Main Thread about what is happening to the Institute of the Good Shepherd -- who already did a deal with Rome
* Etc.

Is obviously blindly desiring a "regularization", and they have lost their clear-headedness, if they ever had it. They are obviously emotional at best, or a "plant" or "agent" at worst.

Thumbing them down is no longer enough.

When tens of thousands of Catholics come here in the coming days and weeks, I don't want to give such emotional people/agents a platform with which to confuse us. Make no mistake: The modernists did it once with Vatican II, and they got how much of the Church? 99.5%? And believe me, they'll do it again with the SSPX. Maybe this time they'll just get 60% or 75%, since we're dealing with Traditionalists.

But we have to keep in mind: The Modernists are very good at confusing us. They use very compelling-sounding arguments, and prey on the ignorance of the average Catholic. They also appeal to piety, obedience, trust in Providence, and countless other "good things" to achieve their aims.

Editorial from Seignadou on the relations with Rome, by Father Michael Simoulin (May 2012):

http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/editorial-from-seignadou-on-the-relations-with-rome-by-father-michael-simoulin-may-2012/

Excerpt:

I do not know if all realize the weight of this decision, which belongs only to Bishop Fellay, a decision that was entrusted to him again last October by our Superiors meeting in Albano, a decision considered together with his assistants: What does the Church expect from the Society in 2012? How must the Society answer to the “needs” of the Church today?


This requires a highly supernatural virtue of prudence, to a degree that none of us has the grace to reach, because it does not pertain either to our abilities or to our responsibility. Only Bishop Fellay and his assistants have, by definition, the totality of the information required to judge rightly about the current situation. The question that each one must rather ask himself refers to our benevolence towards authority and, especially, to our trust in that authority. For twelve years Bishop Fellay has been arguing with Rome, with ups and downs, to finally arrive at the results quoted above, and even to an amazing result that perhaps nobody has even noticed: these doctrinal discussions, which did not make any noise in the market place, have enabled us to say to Rome what we think… to the point of making the discussions end abruptly!


And yet, what hasn’t been said about the silence of the superiors around these discussions and about the docuмents exchanged these last months, and about their great discretion out of respect for Rome and the Holy Father? It has all been interpreted as a form of dissimulation, and even the beginning of a compromise. How can anyone doubt the uprightness of our superiors in such a gratuitous and arbitrary way?