Quote from: Jitpring

If Bp. Fellay sells out, I'm gone.

So, you only support +Fellay if he does a 180 from where he's at right now.

If that's all it takes to be a "Bishop Fellay supporter", I guess you can count me in. My trust in him will have dropped significantly, but if he has a change of heart and retracts his recent statements, I'm sure many of us would support him once again.

Bishop Fellay has already destroyed his own reputation. It's over!

He ought to voluntarily step down, because the next shoe to fall will be the other 3 bishops removing him by consensus. For the good of the Society, the honorable thing for him to do is to resign.

But I suspect he will not resign, because he is too proud. He desires his own agenda, whatever in hades the current version of that might be, and while he persists in his ever-changing narcissism, he loses support among Society members, and he loses whatever perks he was hoping for from concilar Rome as well. He's in a LOSE-LOSE situation, as they say. His days are OVER. And it's his own doing, for his abominable mistake of compromising with error.

And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them
not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the
sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was
the fall thereof (Mt vii 26-27).

In light of the snippet from Catholic Truth (Scotland) on another thread, it is fair to add them here as being pro-agreement. It will be a factor when publications seek financial support. I certainly won't support pro-agreement clerics or publications, events etc etc financially. It would be remarkably brazen of them to expect financial support if they are the people who sell out. They can't have it both ways. We have betrayed you but still want your money is something I won't support.

Could anybody link me to LordPhan's post re: the sermon by the Canadian District Superior? Search wasn't helpful.

Quote from: Benedict 16

Resistance is futile!

Are you sure it wasn't "Abandon hope all ye who enter here!" ?

(abandon hope = resistance is futile)

Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves.
Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves (Mt x 16).

Thanks, Neil Obstat, for re-formatting what CathMomof7 said.  I too am not intellectual and can't always understand but what you wrote, CathMomof7, was very helpful.  How can we support Bishop Felay when we have facts that tell us he has changed and is wanting to unite with the Vatican?    My question is how does this effect us...are we culpable in any way if we keep going to local chapels if they are part of the sell-out?  I plan to stay at my chapel but I am not in agreement - I don't go along with any moderism.  How do we do that?  I hope there is leadership in this resistance.[/color]

   There will be an interim period of time that will be needed by those resisting assimilation to organize.

   This means it will be back to garage and hotel masses for a few years for most of us.

   We should be honored to be persecuted and suffer in this way.

   Christianity without a cross is vain.

   As to the question of whether it will be doctrinally permissible to continue to attend your Menzingen-controlled chapel during this interim period, I have not yet thought that out.

   But some questions that will need to be wrestled with might include:

1) If it is true that Bishop Fellay's purely practical agreement is tantamount to at least implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism, will it also be true of those who continue to attend post-reconcilliation SSPX chapels?

2) My preliminary thought is no, since unlike attending indult chapels (for which Rome placed conditions by which all attending there must abide, per the 1984 indult), the SSPX will not have made any requirements of those attending.

3) If such requirements are stipulated for attendance, then it will depend on the wording of the announcement.

4) Aside from this issue, would be an assessment of whether attending these chapels becomes a danger to the Faith, just as attendance of indult chapels presents such a danger.

5) And if such dangers are imminent, how soon would they set in (i.e., Would there be a few years time for which loyalists could attend these chapels while the 3 organize a new network before the dangers to the faith emerge).

   In short there is much uncertainty here, but these are just my initial thoughts.

   

I think perhaps some of Jit's frustration, which I have as well, may be in not knowing where to go next. Let's get real, the way the SSPX is now is exactly what most of us want. We're not sede's, and if we can go to a non-sede chapel, that's what we'll do; though necessity of receiving valid sacraments trumps not going anywhere, and going to a CMRI priest is not something I'm foreign to, or fundamentally concerned with.

In this case we do need to wait an see in a sense. Not to learn about Bishop Fellay- I think we can all see where he is leading, or 'attempting to' in most of our cases, the flock. But we need to wait for the likes of Bishops Williamson and Tisser to really make the next move. Because, quite frankly, I will not leave the society immediately after a deal is signed.

As long as the sacraments remain valid and the truth continues to be preached I will continue attending. But if there were an option to go to a +Williamson or +Tisser led chapel, I would be there faster than two shakes of a lamb's tail.

Really, we can only sit and wait, and I think it makes many of us anxious and makes it difficult to deal with the situation. Patience will be vital to all of us for now.

Is it possible that if Bp. Fellay signs an agreement, then the other three Bishops and the rest of the SSPX say "NO!" and then perhaps Bp. Williamson could consecrate a bishop to replace Bp. Fellay?

Its very possible. But what their strategy will be, no one knows. I doubt they'll do what many of the careless sede Bishops have done and give the apostolic succession to just anyone though.

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Catholic News Service

“I would hope so,” (+Fellay) said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

Do you agree with him? Does this sound like the official position of the SSPX? Or is this merely rumor?

What?!

Did he really say that?

Not only that.  He says that Pope Benedict is working to "defend the faith."  Really.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

Fellay speaks to U.S.Bishops's Catholic News Service:
"The move from the Holy Father is genuine"

The Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, spoke today to Catholic News Service (CNS), the news agency of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The main excerpts are the following. (Note: comments may be made on the post of the Letter of the General Council.)


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

"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."
...

"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."
...
"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."

I do wish the other three Bishops could oust Fellay somehow. Though, I doubt that will happen.

Not when we know what we do about Krah huh... But I agree.