This very interesting item on the General Chapter was posted on IGNIS ARDENS by DUMB OX. It should be placed side by side with Fr Pfluger's comments.
Some information of interest received by email from a friend overseas:
"Here are a couple of interesting extracts from the weekly bulletin of Max Barrett, the longtime chauffeur of Archbishop Lefebvre, and to whom the Archbishop dedicated (at least in French) his last work, Spiritual Journey.
July 22, 2012.
RELATING TO THE GENERAL CHAPTER, AND THE STATEMENT OF MENZINGEN OF JULY 14, M. BARRETT WRITES:
I received a communiqué, for which I can guarantee the source, but cannot reveal the author – for obvious reasons!
A PART OF THE COMMUNIQUÉ READS:
Mgr. Fellay found himself in a minority at the General Chapter (which was only consultative) as several sources have indicated, including Vatican Radio. Thus, he did not have the support that he was counting upon for his Roman policy, although all the superiors were nominated by him. However, in all likelihood, he will continue with it [the Roman policy -ed] whatever the costs. Notwithstanding the triumphalist and soothing tone of the communiqués, the exchanges were extremely heated and the atmosphere very strained. It would appear that the declaration which will be sent to Rome will not be too bad, but it risks being, above all else, a way of tranquillizing the opposition temporarily, before renewing the negotiations with Mgr. Di Noia and Mgr. Muller (who love us so much!) The risk in sending this declaration to Rome is that in this way we will return once again to a game of ping-pong.
M. Barrett comments, in part, on this statement:
This is why one would be extremely naive in believing that peace, a serene and salutary peace, is going to reign in our communities during this status quo, because, unfortunately, the spectre of a ralliement will remain forever present.
A few comments:
1. Have you intel on the question relating to Vatican Radio? It seems incredible that a normally accurate commentator, such as M. Barrett, would countenance such an assertion by a source without having knowledge of it.
2. The idea that +Fellay was in a minority at the General Chapter seems incongruous in the light of the news that the Declaration of the Chapter, and its conditions for a canonical solution with Rome, was voted 40-0 according to Menzingen.
However, I understand from a clerical source close to Menzingen that the Declaration of the Chapter was NOT voted on as a complete statement, but rather was voted line by line. One assumes that the voting was conducted on the basis of a simple majority. If this is so, it signifies that the 40-0 vote made public by Menzingen is perfectly true, but potentially hides a deeper level of disunity on the key and less felicitous phrases in the Declaration. It means that some of the most controversial points may have just scraped through and more solid demands been scrapped by a mere vote or two.
One further piece from Max Barrett of interest in regard to the general methodology used by +Fellay and his fellow-travellers in recent years.
Where is that blessed time when, by the fortune of his travels, Mgr. Lefebvre rested his suitcase in our house – as he did elsewhere no doubt – and, in all simplicity, at the kitchen table read a letter received from the Vatican, and invited us to read it with him! On that day, the table was well-stocked, because we had the habit of inviting several friends during his visits. He did not demand of them any kind of “security” before commenting upon it, and I have no memory that his remarks were in any way favourable to an agreement with Rome! For him, for his friends, there were no secrets! No ambiguity! Everything was crystal clear! His written correspondence, which we are preserving piously, did not lend itself to the least dispute. It was straightforward, transparent, direct! It avoided all 'rumours'!
Just one comment on this beautiful paragraph. During the halcyon days of the Archbishop, there was no oath of secrecy at the General Chapter. The Archbishop WANTED to hear what his leadership thought, frankly and honestly, without any hint of coercion or manipulation. This oath of secrecy, so cherished by +Fellay, was introduced to the SSPX only in 2006.
Although it was formally proposed by Fr. Ramon Angles, the inspiration was undoubtedly that of +Fellay. Moreover, it is to be noted that the very same Fr. Angles was present at the July meeting of the General Chapter, not as a voting member, but in order to justify “canonically” the sanctions laid against +Williamson by +Fellay.
We see, therefore, that not only is +Fellay deviating from the course plotted by Archbishop Lefebvre, but even from the transparency and solidarity espoused by the Archbishop in relation to his confrères and faithful.
It was an example of the Two Swords in action: priests and faithful, led by their General, seeking the greater glory of God and His Holy Church. It was all carried out in the open, in the light of day. Now + Fellay acts in the shadows and the dark (his reply to the three bishops is just one example and an admission of this fact), and it leads not to transparency and solidarity, but suspicion, distrust and disunity. God rest the soul of Archbishop Lefebvre!"
Max Barrett's newsletter (in French) may be found here:http://tychique.net/pdf/Courrier_N_421.pdf