From IA poster Cristera, a conference that Bishop Fellay gave in Avignon on 5/2:

He (Bishop Fellay) evoked  the very difficult position of the Holy Father in front of the opposition of the modernists, even within the Vatican by those who should serve the Pope (deaf oppositions such as changing texts, blocking mail, for example: a superior of a Benedictine monastery who asks the pope to return to the old Mass for his community. After six months without response, he sends a request through a Roman prelate who delivers it directly to the Holy Father: The pope was surprised so he immediately gave a positive response, inviting other communities to do the same ...)

Bishop Fellay has confirmed that the period is crucial and that the response to Preamble is in the hands of the Vatican for examination. He confirmed the unleashing of the forces of hell, never seen in 40 years, especially against the Pope (he evoked  the Williamson affair), the two opposing tendencies within the Church (progressive and conservative).
He also noted clear signs of a change taking place in the Church, especially with the clergy (including young bishops) which turns to the traditional liturgy. Bishop Fellay, who is in a very difficult position, is trying to see the will of God through the events. That's why he invites us to prayer and confidence, God won’t abandon his Church.

As for the conclusion of the dialogue: agreement, not agreement; he specified that in both cases it will be difficult for the SSPX, who will leave a period of status quo (neither schismatic nor excommunicated, but not in full communion: thus a certain freedom of operation). The refusal of an agreement would open over a period of strong tensions; an agreement would unleash the modernists.

Sounds like this whole negotiation could go either way. It certainly does not sound like is it a done deal.

  for Bishop Fellay.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9306

As some have mentioned, so many threads, hard to know where to post some things.


QUOTE (BISHOP FELLAY)
...the Holy Father insisted on effective recognition of the pope, linking it to the necessity of consecrating bishops as pleaded by Archbishop Lefebvre, and our subsequent activities.

Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can be only one way of belonging to the Catholic Church: i.e., by having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is to say according to the intention of the Fathers of the Council and the letter of the text. This is a perspective that rather frightens us….

Finally, we would have to have, thinks the Sovereign Pontiff, a suitable structure for the traditional rite and certain exterior practices - without, however, protecting us from the spirit of the Council that we would have to adopt.



QUOTE (Bishop Fellay)
To desire an immediate canonical agreement at any cost would expose us to see an immediate resurgence of the problems opposing us to Rome, and the agreement would at once become null and void. The regularization of our canonical status must come last...

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Fellay: SSPX "cannot sign an agreement"

The Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, signed his latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors last Monday - and it was published in the current edition of the official newsletter of the Fraternity, DICI (alternative link) made available today.

This is the heart of the letter:
...
The Motu Proprio which introduced a hope of change for the better at the liturgical level is not accompanied by logically co-related measures in the other areas of the life of the Church. All changes introduced at the Council and in the post-Conciliar reforms which we denounce, because the Church has already condemned them, are confirmed. With the difference that, from now on, it is said, at the same time, that the Church does not change…[sic], which means that these changes are perfectly in the line of Catholic Tradition.

The disruption at the level of concepts, together with the reminder that the Church must remain faithful to her Tradition, may trouble some. Since facts do not corroborate the new attitude [lit.: affirmation], it is necessary to conclude that nothing has changed in the will of Rome to follow the Conciliar orientations, despite forty years of crisis, despite the deserted convents, the abandoned rectories, the empty churches. The Catholic universities persist in their ramblings, the teaching of the Catechism remains unknown at the same time that the Catholic school does not exist anymore as particularly Catholic: it has become an extinct species…

This is why the Fraternity of Saint Pius X cannot "sign an agreement" [ne peut pas "signer d'accord"]. It openly rejoices on the papal desire to reintroduce the ancient and venerable rite of the Holy Mass, but it also discovers the resistance, at times brutal, of whole episcopates. Without despairing, without impatience, we observe that the time for an agreement has not yet come. This does not prevent us from continuing to wait, from continuing on the path defined in the year 2000. We continue to ask the Holy Father for the repeal of the decree of excommunication of 1988, because we are persuaded that that would do much good to the Church and we encourage you to pray that it may take place.

But it would be very imprudent and hasty to thrust ourselves unwisely in pursuit of a practical agreement which would not be founded upon the fundamental principles of the Church, particularly on the faith.
...

+ Bernard Fellay
Menzingen, April 14, 2008

(Found here )

QUOTE (Bishop Fellay @ August 2011)
“there is a clash of mentalities… In any case, we are certainly not in agreement. If there is one thing we agree on, that is that we do not agree on anything.”

QUOTE (Bishop Fellay @ April 14, 2008)
But it would be very imprudent and hasty to thrust ourselves unwisely in pursuit of a practical agreement which would not be founded upon the fundamental principles of the Church, particularly on the faith.

I always find it Providential how much Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about Cardinal Ratzinger, considering his position now & the current situation. Plus ça change...

In Conformity to God's Will

QUOTE
  We present to you this beautiful Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre, which he gave to the priests of the District of France, at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, Paris, 13 December 1984. Though it is addressed to priests, we thought it of great value for the laity. It reveals the spirit in which His Excellency has trained his priests; the lessons on our dependence upon God are valuable for all Catholics, and the necessity of preserving the Faith is also well stressed!

[First, some words to his priests about the apostolate, difficulties priests face, etc.]

...[Now the Archbishop contrasts this idea of dependence on God with the situation in the Church today, where the problem is people want independence from God.]

After this outline of our apostolate, of our interior life, of our behavior towards God, towards Our Lord, towards our apostolate, let us turn now to those who profess independence in regard to God. And we will see precisely that our current situation in the history of the Church, in the current epoch of the Church, is the true situation in which we should be and we should stay, because our adversaries are precisely those who proclaim independence and revolution against God and who wage war against all dependence on God, against all the laws of the Good Lord, against all the laws, supernatural and natural. They want to destroy everything. By the mere fact that something has been made by God, it is to be destroyed! The natural laws of marriage, all the natural laws even of simple material nature, even the ways of cultivating the earth, even the manners of behaving oneself everywhere, everything that recalls God, all that reminds us of a dependence upon God must be broken, must be changed. The revolution must be carried out in all domains: liberation - liberty! liberty! liberty! - to free oneself from God, to free oneself from dependence upon God in all domains, that is the revolution. Now that is the spirit of Satan. That is hell. Hell is independence in regard to God. "Non serviam!" "Nolumus hunc regnare usper nos - we do not want this One to rule over us!" This is the cry of hell!

Then we see all that being brought about before our eyes: the struggle for the secular school, this is the struggle against God, against dependence upon God. All those bad laws that have been passed: abortion, contraception, divorce, are the destruction of the laws of God and, therefore, destruction of dependence upon God. Now, since Protestantism, and particularly since the French Revolution, we have been present at this war, now an open war, against dependence upon God, and particularly against dependence upon Our Lord Jesus Christ, since there is no other God than Our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom dwell the Father and the Holy Ghost. "He who does not have Jesus Christ," says St. John, "does not have the Father." This war inaugurated by the Jews and continuing through Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is directed by Satan, by all the means.

Now, we arrive at the betrayal, at the betrayal of Catholics by liberalism. The liberals are those who make compromises with those people, with those who proclaim liberty and independence from God, in the name of the "rights" of man. Indeed, religious liberty is none other than one of the articles of the Constitution of the Rights of Man, of the proclamation of the rights of man; and even ecuмenism is only a consequence of religious liberty, of "equality," of the equality which ruins all of a nature such as the Good Lord has made it. We are born unequal. Beyond a doubt, we are equal by our nature, but the Good Lord has willed that we be unequal in our talents, in the abilities that He has given us for the organization of society, among ourselves, so that there be a Christian order, a Christian hierarchy. This inequality is basically in nature as intended by God; likewise private property, which necessarily gives rise to inequalities, is willed by God; all those things are willed by God; all those things are willed by God. Now liberalism makes a pact with the satanic ideas of the world, in revolt against God, and against all the laws that the Good Lord has made, natural and supernatural. Liberalism wants to join forces with those people and therefore admits these principles. So we who want to save and reorganize this dependence upon God and on Our Lord Jesus Christ in ourselves, around us, by the intercession of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, with the reign of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, well, we rebel against those who do not want dependence upon God, dependence upon Our Lord Jesus Christ, and against those who are ruining the dependence on Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now this is what the men of the Church are doing right now! We see it before our eyes; it is clear, everywhere. Since the Council, liberalism has taken over the most important positions in the Church, from the Pope to the cardinals of Rome, down to the Curia. Liberalism has taken root in the Church; therefore the moral compromise of the men of the Church with the men of Satan - not an open agreement - no more struggle, no more struggle against Satan, no more war against those who proclaim independence in regard to God - that is finished. And this pact was signed openly on the occasion of the Council, publicly, with the Freemasons, with the Protestants, with the Communists. We were present at this marriage, at this adulterous, abominable union, between the men of the Church and the revolution and the ideas, which go against God and Our Lord Jesus Christ, against His reign. This is abominable!

This has been proven recently, too, by the interview of Cardinal Ratzinger, which was published in fourteen pages. A book is going to appear soon about this interview, which lasted several days. The person who conducted the interview is going to edit a book. I think that the phrase which is here reported by this person (it is a conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger) is certainly going to be reported there, in the book. It is of outstanding importance. If there are some very good things in the interview, there are some things radically wrong in Cardinal Ratzinger's words, which show us the seriousness of the present situation when you think that the Cardinal is all the same, he who is at the head of the Congregation called “For the Doctrine of the Faith." Unfortunately, it is no longer the Holy Office! Here is the phrase, which is found on page 72 of the Italian magazine:

"Then, a little disturbed," I said to the Cardinal [said the person questioning him], "is the situation in the Church really going to be changed?"

"Yes." [The response is solemn.] "Yes, the problem of the 1960's was to obtain the best expressed values of two centuries of liberal culture. [So that was the problem of the 1960's!] And indeed, there are values which, even though they are born outside the Church [appalling, such foolishness: which are born outside the Church!], can find their place provided that they be depurati et correcti [what does that mean?] in the vision that the Church has of the world. [This is appalling, appalling!] And that has been done."

It is done; it is finished, for him. It is an affair completed, ended. The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecuмenism. It is Satanic.

Next the Cardinal says: "Questo si e fatto," that is done, it is an accomplished fact. "But," he adds, "the climate is a little different, it has gotten a lot worse." "E molto peggiorato rispetto a quello che giustificava un ottimismo forse ingenuo" - but now the climate is less good, "peggiorato," made worse in comparison with the time when we could have a true optimism rather unsophisticated. So, now, "Bisogna quindi cercare nuovi equilibri - now we have to look for a new balance."

He [Cardinal Ratzinger] does not say that it is necessary to remove these principles, these values which come from liberal culture, but that it is necessary to try to discover a new balance. This new balance is Opus Dei. The balance of Opus Dei is an exterior of traditionalism, an exterior of piety, an exterior of religious discipline, with liberal ideas. The liberal ideas are kept. There is no question of taking away the liberal ideas. There is no question of fighting against the rights of man, against ecuмenism, and against religious freedom, which is an essential right of man for sure, even if it entails bringing him an exterior disposition.

I think we have to judge all the acts of Rome nowadays in that perspective, in the perspective of Cardinal Ratzinger, since he is the spokesman: keep the liberal ideas; there is no question of changing the new fundamental principles which we acquired during the 1960's, which are now an accomplished fact for the Church. The liberal ideas, certain liberal ideas, can be a part of the vision, which the Church has of the world; but all the same we have to look for a certain balance. Now for this balance, we have to hit a little at the theology of liberation, we have to hit the French bishops a little bit on the subject of the catechism, we have to give, to those who really have nostalgia for the ancient Mass, a small satisfaction, on occasion, occasionally, and look! It is the same thing for the theology of liberation; they do not abandon the principle, for they say in their docuмent:

"There is a theology of liberation which is possible, there is a theology of liberation for the poor, which is neither more nor less than the Marxist solution of liberation. But we must not arrive at the Marxist solution of liberation." They are inevitably full of contradiction. They cannot not be a continual contradiction. Finally, they give an impression of wanting to return to Tradition, but they do not have the will to do so; they do not want to. And finally, they accept the conclusions of all those false theologians and of all the bishops who are revolutionaries, who manage the revolution.

We find ourselves right now in that situation. It is very clear in this interview with Cardinal Ratzinger. I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.

...Why the struggle for the school? The stakes are such that this struggle must be kept up strenuously. You still see the liberalism, which frees the states from Our Lord Jesus Christ, this liberalism of the Vatican! It is the Vatican that has asked for the independence of the states with regard to Our Lord Jesus Christ. The men in the Vatican do not have the Catholic spirit. The last concordat to be signed, that of Italy, is an obvious proof of that! The Pope and Cardinal Casaroli have congratulated each other on the separation of Church and State, and the laicization of the Italian state. Now, therefore, Christian, Catholic teaching is no longer obligatory in the schools. It was obligatory up to that point; obligatory catechism in the schools of Italy. That is finished. Likewise, independence of the Holy City in regard to Our Lord. The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, of an those liberal ideas - "two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.

...With that I think that I have said what I wanted to say to you, and given you a certain line of conduct in the present events, which perhaps are going to go even faster. There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually.

...That is not possible! One cannot come to terms like that! That they give us back everything. That they give up their liberalism, that they come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples.

But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.

We have verified it with the seminarians and those who have left us, and who have gone off to Rome and to whom beautiful promises have been made: "We will keep for you the Mass of St. Pius V." Little by little they have been lined up, they have been recycled. They had to take it or leave it. They accepted all the novelties. We find ourselves now in a new period, in a new phase, and they would like to entice us also with certain traditional appearances, whereas in reality they put us in the margin, as they say, by the Decree! We are not concerned with this, since we are among those who do not accept the Council without reserve, who do not accept the New Mass.

Therefore this is not for us! But that makes no difference, they seek and they have already succeeded in alluring some of our people, like Father Normandin of Canada, who has accepted the principle of the New Mass. By this means, he has been given the Mass of St. Pius V; he has been given a parish, so there! There are also Fathers Bleau and Le Pivain, and several others, who are lured by the bishops. The bishops are very happy to be able to have some of the priests who formerly were traditionalists and who agree to make this little contract which is moreover apparently very restrained but which at last puts them into the surroundings, in the bath, with those who have liberal ideas and who say the New Mass.

So then we have to warn our faithful strongly, so that they do not let themselves be deceived, or be captured by an exterior of traditional reform, which would lead them inevitably to the adoption of liberalism and liberal ideas.

QUOTE
Interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, to French Catholic Magazine Monde & Vie. The noticeable line is Fellay's declaration that not all doctrinal positions have to be exhaustively discussed with no end in sight - what is needed is a "sufficient clarification" of doctrinal issues.

Did you expect, Your Excellency, this removal of the excommunication concerning you?

[Fellay:] I expected it since 2005, after the first letter requesting the lifting of the excommunication which I had sent at the request of Rome itself. Because it is clear that Rome did not ask for this letter in order to refuse to lift the excommunication. As for the moment when it took place, I did not expect it. These past few months, after the ultimatum affair [link], even after it had been minimized, we were mostly cool [in the mutual relations]. Then, I wrote the letter of November 15, which is mentioned in the decree and in my letter to the faithful... [sic]

Is this decree a sign of the Pope's will?

[Fellay:] I ascribe it first of all to the Holy Virgin. It is a manifest sign, with an almost immediate response. I had just decided to go to Rome to deliver the result of the Rosary bouquet we had launched at Lourdes with this explicit intention when I received a call from Rome inviting me to go there.

Is the satisfaction displayed by you today tempered by the remainder of the path to follow?

[Fellay:] It is too early to tell. An act of the greatest relevance, for which we are truly grateful, has just taken place, but it is very difficult to assess it at this moment. We still do not view all its ramifications. There still is a lot of work, but we truly have great hope for a restoration of the Church.

From what moment dates this change in your relationship with Rome?

[Fellay:]  From the accession of the current pope. I first evoked the Holy Virgin but, at a human level, there should be no fear of ascribing to Benedict XVI what has just taken place. It is the beginning of something, which had already begun with the Motu proprio [Summorum Pontificuм]. I think that the Pope appreciates the work that we do.

In this development, this movement, some have held that you departed too late. Do you believe today that others, especially inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, may hold that you are departing too soon?

[Fellay:] I cannot rule out everything, but, in case there are separations, they will be extremely minimal.

Do you believe that your situation will be first settled at a practical level?

[Fellay:] Up to now, our roadmap has been to clarify first the doctrinal problems - even if it does not mean settling everything, but obtaining a sufficient clarification - or we risk doing things incompletely. Or it may end up badly.

And do you believe that, beyond Rome, your contacts will intensify?

[Fellay:] It is the goal, as I explained in Rome, by saying that the situation, as we propose it, is certainly temorary, but it is pacifying, and that it will allow all souls of good will to catch up. This will thus be done gradually. And this will also depend on the reaction on the other side. But there is no a priori, the only a priori is that of Truth and of Charity.


QUOTE
[Fellay:] Up to now, our roadmap has been to clarify first the doctrinal problems - even if it does not mean settling everything, but obtaining a sufficient clarification - or we risk doing things incompletely. Or it may end up badly.


QUOTE (August 2011)
[Bishop Fellay's] judgement on the [recent discussions with Rome] was anything but friendly: “They are not beneficial right now because there is a clash of mentalities… In any case, we are certainly not in agreement. If there is one thing we agree on, that is that we do not agree on anything.”

(A "sufficient clarification" that they "do not agree on anything"?

This was my post actually:

Did he explain why he is negotiating a practical solution while all the doctrinal issues remain, in blatant opposition to Archbishop Lefebvre, and the oft-published position of the SSPX itself?

From IA poster Cristera, a conference that Bishop Fellay gave in Avignon on 5/2:

Quote:
He (Bishop Fellay) evoked  the very difficult position of the Holy Father in front of the opposition of the modernists, even within the Vatican by those who should serve the Pope (deaf oppositions such as changing texts, blocking mail, for example: a superior of a Benedictine monastery who asks the pope to return to the old Mass for his community. After six months without response, he sends a request through a Roman prelate who delivers it directly to the Holy Father: The pope was surprised so he immediately gave a positive response, inviting other communities to do the same ...)

Bishop Fellay has confirmed that the period is crucial and that the response to Preamble is in the hands of the Vatican for examination. He confirmed the unleashing of the forces of hell, never seen in 40 years, especially against the Pope (he evoked  the Williamson affair), the two opposing tendencies within the Church (progressive and conservative).
He also noted clear signs of a change taking place in the Church, especially with the clergy (including young bishops) which turns to the traditional liturgy. Bishop Fellay, who is in a very difficult position, is trying to see the will of God through the events. That's why he invites us to prayer and confidence, God won’t abandon his Church.

As for the conclusion of the dialogue: agreement, not agreement; he specified that in both cases it will be difficult for the SSPX, who will leave a period of status quo (neither schismatic nor excommunicated, but not in full communion: thus a certain freedom of operation). The refusal of an agreement would open over a period of strong tensions; an agreement would unleash the modernists.


Sounds like this whole negotiation could go either way. It certainly does not sound like is it a done deal.

for Bishop Fellay.




That is exactly what I was told by my priest.  There is no done deal.  It's all resting on the thin edge of a dime.

That is not to say I agree with an agreement but it's not done and over with yet.

(darn, I haven't figured out the quote thing yet sorry)