(The following is my opinion on the "deal" between the SSPX and Rome. I haven't really seen any other threads for people to put their own analysis of the deal in, so I thought I'd start this thread. Others are free to add their own opinions.)
The SSPX is not the same group it was 20 years ago, 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. A large emount of division has been created in the Society due to the Society's attempts to "reconcile" with Rome. Not too long ago, I started a thread entitled "SSPX: A Trad Group Gone Wrong". I should clarify that in writing that, I was not saying the entire Society was bad. Not by any means. I have made it pretty clear that I am very fond of Archbishop LeFebvre and the other three Bishops (+Williamson, +Tissier, and +Galarreta), and there are many good priests in the Society as well.
Yet the stench of liberalism has slowly begun to weave its way into the Society. Not because everyone in the Society is a bunch of liberals, but rather because the flood of liberalism is coming from the liberal-infected Rome and Benedict XVI, and Bishop Fellay has been tricked into opening the door. I can't help but think of a comment from John XXIII, that the Church needed to "open the windows and let in a little fresh air". Fresh air was already in the Church, of course, so "opening the windows" could only have resulted in the opposite of fresh air... or as Paul VI himself put it, "the smoke of satan" to enter the Catholic Church. My point? If the Church already had the truth, why was fresh air needed? Similar situation with the SSPX. If they were preserving Tradition to begin with (and they were), why open the door to modernist Rome?
The dogmatic supporters of Bishop Fellay are subject to a flawed concept of obedience, and some happen adhere to liberal ideas themselves. It is most interesting to note that certain Fellay supporters (not ALL, but some) cry foul like the kid who was told by his mother that he couldn't have a candy bar, whining that we should be "ashamed" for criticizing a Bishop of the Church, and blah blah blah. Yet, these very people have no qualms with criticizing Bishop Williamson or the other two Bishops! I have not seen many criticisms of them here on CatholicInfo, or on Ignis Ardens, but on more neo-con sites, +Williamson is portrayed as an "extremist" or a "conspiracy theorist" because of his comments on the Jєωs and the h0Ɩ0h0αx. These people are perplexed that +Williamson has the nerve to criticize his Superior General. They can slander him all day. But critcism of Fellay is off limits. See the double standard?
So, to get to the analysis of a "reconciliation" between the SSPX and Rome, there are a few things worth pointing out:
1- Where did the idea that Benedict XVI is, as Bishop Fellay calls him, a "friend of Tradition" come from? Father Rostand make a similar remark in a recent interview, when he said he thought that perhaps "the Pope wants us to come in and help resolve the crisis in the Church". But what evidence is there that Benedict really cares about resolving the crisis? John Vennari made an excellent point recently that if Benedict truly wanted to resolve the crisis, why did he appoint Cardinal Levada as the Vatican's head of "defending the Faith"? This man repeatedly covered up sɛҳuąƖ abuse cases in his diocese (sound familiar?), among other things, and he is in charge of "defending the Faith"? How will that help the crisis get any better?
We should also recall that Joseph Ratzinger wrote many heretical books that even Bishop Tissier said contained many heresies and blasphemies that Ratzinger has yet to repent of. And was it any different in his latest book "Jesus of Nazareth"? Of course not! That book contained the same filth his other ones did, except this book was perhaps slightly more ambiguous. If anyone wants just a taste of how messed up Ratzinger's mind must have been (and still is) all they have to is read that CRAP book "Introduction to Christianty" and be prepared to use it as firewood after reading it.
Bishop Fellay wrote in 2003 that he would need more definite signs of a conversion from Rome before a "reconciliation" could take place. Is Joseph Ratzinger really that sign? Has Fellay forgotten that Ratzinger played a key role in the "excommunication" of the Society to begin with? A modernist such as Benedict cannot be trusted.
2- As I stated the other day, history shows that other Trad groups that have joined forces with Rome haven't exactly gotten their way. The FSSP, who broke away from the SSPX following the 1988 "excommunications", were promised a Cardinal and never received one. Not to mention that Father Bisig was removed from his position after some of his priests in the Fraternity sent a complaint to Rome when he wouldn't allow them to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. And then there's the Institution of the Good Shepard, who was originally told that they didn't have to accept Vatican II. Now they have been told they must. Of course, Bishop Fellay has already accepted 95% of it, so no problem there. That's just it, though. Was it not Vatican II that was responsible for this mess in the Church to begin with? Why would you want to accept it?
3- Supporters of a deal don't really know how to interpret the words of Archbishop LeFebvre. If they did, they wouldn't support a deal in the first place. Archbishop LeFebvre clearly did not support a deal with Rome. I will provide two quotes of his that prove this. Firstly:
If they excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
And then there's this:
A FALSE CHARITY
And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.
So, while everyone is free to believe what they want to believe, it has become unfortunately obvious that Bishop Fellay is not following in the footsteps of ABL should he accept this deal with Rome. The Society will never be able to convert Rome themselves. Rather, if they aren't careful, Rome could convert them. That is precisely what Rome wants, too. The good Archbishop LeFebvre knew better than fall for Rome's lies, but does Fellay? Apparently not.
God Bless.
Topic: An Analysis of a Deal Between the SSPX and Rome (Read 794 times)