The latest scam/farce from the SSPX has been their absurd request yesterday for all Traditional Catholic forums to shut down. Igins Ardens heeded this request, probably more-so as a mere excuse to take a break from all the discussion and bickering that has been taking place on the forum lately.
Most of you are probably familiar with a book entitled "EWTN: a Network Gone Wrong". That title is quite fitting in this situation. "SSPX: a Trad group Gone Wrong" (not to imply the SSPX and EWTN were ever the same anyway, the Society was Traditional from the beginning while EWTN was more of a semi-Trad network that has now become a full-fledged modernist, Novus Ordo network). Still, the same concept applies.
What is mind boggling is that Bishop Fellay never seemed so liberal from 1988 to 2008. Why the sudden change in 2009? Why the sudden sympathy for the Jєωs, the great respect for Benedict XVI, and the contempt for +Williamson's comments on the Jєωs and the h0Ɩ0cαųst? Could it be an influence from Krah or someone else in the Society? Could it be he has been blackmailed? None of us know for certain, but the fact remains that Fellay has taken a stance somewhere between Archbishop LeFebvre's, and Benedict XVI's. In other words, not heretical or modernist, but not that Traditional either. The other three Bishops (+Williamson, +Tissier, and +Galarreta) have stuck with the Archbishop's stance, yet are receiving horrible persecution for it, especially +Williamson.
What is with this request for all forums to shut down until Pentecost? That seems sneaky, doesn't it? It's nothing more than a scam to keep forums from speaking the truth. And of course, they throw in a mention of Archbishop LeFebvre and reading his books to make themselves feel less guilty for betraying him. IA shutting down, as questionable as it is, is up to them. I, however, will not close my forum during this time, as I see through this farce they're playing. Fortunately, so does Matthew. But some don't seem to get it.
The latest bizzare behavior of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX is somewhat similar to Vatican II. Fellay has apparently let someone influence him, just as Vatican II (intentionally) let the world influence it. Fellay is apparently trying to convince the Vatican that the other three Bishops are no real threat to an impending deal due to their lack of money, lack of owned property, and the old age of two of them, just as the Vatican assumed the SSPX would fizzle out after ABL's death, thus why they couldn't handle it when he went ahead with the Consecrations in 1988. Fellay isn't as bad as Benedict or Vatican II, sure. That's not the impression I'm trying to make. But he mistakenly believes that Benedict is a friend of Tradition, and that Vatican II can be "interpreted in the light of Tradition". Does that sound like the stance of the SSPX, or more-so the stance of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)? Where did he get those ideas from?
Yet we see other people making statements such as "Oh, but a reconciliation will help save so many souls" or "Archbishop LeFebvre would have accepted a deal like this" or "Why can't we just wait and see"?
There is a problem with all three of those statements. For one thing, how many Novus Ordo laymen, priests, and bishops are really going to care if the Society is "regularized"? Modernists cannot stand Tradition or the Traditional Latin Mass, so what makes anyone think the Society can convince them otherwise? If anything, it will be the semi-Trads the Society attracts. The only good a deal would do with Novus Ordites is that NOs could no longer call the Society "schismatic". But who cares what they think anyway? As Archbishop LeFebvre said, "They're the schismatics".
"Wait and see" in terms of seeing what the other three Bishops will do is fine, as their move will likely be even more interested then Felay's. But "waiting and seeing" what Fellay will do is a waste of time. He has shown himself to be a traitor of Archbishop LeFebvre's mission. Fellay is way too soft on Judaism and Vatican II. I can't help but recall what Bishop Williamson once said in a talk some years ago, saying that most priests and bishops during Vatican II, instead of doing what Archbishop LeFebvre did by standing up for the truth, simply said "Whatever you say Holy Father!". Unfortunately, Fellay is beginning to adhere to that very mindset, and it is very dangerous.
Finally, for those who keep harping that ABL would be pleased with any "reconciliation", the following quote from him shows why one should think just the opposite.
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Our consolation will be that we remain in the company of God and of all the martyrs who have given their lives to keep the Faith.
Anyway, these are just my observations. (I wasn't sure if this belonged in the General Discussion or Crisis in the Church subforum. Matthew can move it if he wants.)