If you want to criticize Bp. Fellay and the Neo-SSPX crowd, just use Bp. Fellay's writings against the Campos re-conciliation with Rome.

Study them, and just copy and paste them here.

I am starting this tread for CI'ers to compile all the writings of Bp. Fellay (and all the SSPX under his authority) articles against the Campos, Brazil reconciliation with Rome. Here is the first one I found (bold and blue added by me for quick reading). Notice how the points brought up by Fellay to criticize Campos are IDENTCAL to what Fellay is undertaking himself today.

January 2003 - Superior General's Letter #63

In the eyes of Rome, the Campos-Rome agreement was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us. There is a desire on the part of some Vatican officials to put an end to the downhill slide. However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. In this letter we will also tell you a little of our activity in the missionary countries of Lithuania and Kenya.


Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Our relations with Rome

Once again our letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the Pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle. On the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.

Changes in Campos

Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome’s offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one’s adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that “Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass”, (this was later confirmed with pictures as a fact)[/color]or, “Campos has completely given up Tradition”. However, that being said, here is what we observe:

1. The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI’s encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II’s traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, “Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church’s Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today”.

2. The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favourable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: “We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting”. Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome’s gesture in favour of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation…They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

3. Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman… “We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer”, said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

4. Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it,  Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: “So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!”. We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: “Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It’s not the same thing”. That was Rome’s argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal’s curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today’s Rome. “We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition”, said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chrétienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing….

So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out.[/b] The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.

Leaving the SSPX behind

Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants – for the moment.

One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome’s offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome’s offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect’s plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that “It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny”.

Life inside the SSPX

Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labours. ....

† Bernard Fellay
 Feast of the Epiphany
 6 January 2003


Tags:

The Campos Situation


By   Bishop Bernard Fellay


"Campos does not want to acknowledge it. The reality will become obvious to them quite quickly. Very likely, it will be too late. They still think that as far as Rome is concerned, this is the recognition of Tradition. But it is the contrary that has just happened. A part of Tradition, a traditional movement, has accepted, albeit it with some reservations, the post-conciliar reality. Rome feels that this is a big enough step. It must, moreover, be said that for the first time one non-dogmatic Council has been made into a criterion that determines one’s Catholicity[/size]." [/b]
   
The joining together, at an interval of only a few days, of Rome’s recognition of Campos, that some consider to be a recognition of Tradition, and of the day of Assisi, which is totally opposed to Tradition, manifests such a contradiction that we are obliged to take a more profound look at it. The systematic destruction, since Vatican II, of everything that is traditional in the Church, demands that there be a logical consistency in the undertaking of this work. Before accepting the recognition of Campos as the return of Rome to Tradition, we are obliged to ask ourselves if this event could also be considered, and indeed if it must be considered, within the framework of the post-conciliar mindset. It is precisely the day of Assisi that furnishes an argument capable of proving this thesis. If post-conciliar Rome is capable of bringing so many religions together, and we could even say all religions, for a common religious cause, how could it not also find also a small place for Tradition?

     Must we acknowledge that for Rome these two things are necessarily opposed: on the one hand the continuing of the reforms, and on the other the reabsorbing of "the schism of Tradition" in accepting this Tradition, although it has shown itself up to date exclusive and condemnatory (which also means accepting that Tradition was right against modernist Rome)? It is quite manifest that the continuing of the reforms is maintained as an untouchable and irreversible principle. Hence the condition that Rome must impose for the acceptation of a traditional movement is an agreement in principle on the Council (although nuances and some conclusions would be open to discussion). It is the obvious step. This means the imposition of the entry of Tradition into pluralism under the appearance of recognition by Rome. It is not the return of the post-conciliar church to Tradition. Cardinal Castrillon rebuked me for exposing this argument. According to him, it is not in the name of pluralism that Rome desires our return, and Rome does not desire to place us in a pluralist situation. And yet…

    Cardinal Castrillon, the architect of the Campos agreement, expressed the condition for bringing about this new prodigy even before the beginning of the discussions, in an article in 30 Giorni first published in the Fall of 2000, and then in La Nef and finally in Campos, during a Press conference given on January 19, 2002. Furthermore, Father Cottier, the theologian of the Papal household, did not use any other argument: the acceptation of the Council is manifestly the major and determining factor. After it comes the acceptation of the New Mass. This is the principle from which the revolution in the Church flowed, and in fact everything follows from it. Given this fact, it seems to me that we find ourselves before one more ambiguity with respect to the conciliar church. When we say that we accept the Council with restrictions (namely, the refusing of anything that is contrary to the Church’s continuous teaching, interpreting ambiguous passages in the light of Tradition, and accepting what has always been taught), it seems indeed that we are saying something quite different from that which the Roman authorities understand. For, fundamentally, we consider this Council as the great catastrophe of the 20th century and the cause of incalculable damage inflicted upon the Church and upon souls, whereas they see it as the great miracle of the 20th century, the cause of the Church’s rejuvenation. Everything else follows: Father Cottier announced that the next step expected from Campos is the concelebration of the New Mass, of course. Msgr. Perl stated that this would be done piano piano, or little by little. Piano piano, the Campos priests and faithful will be reintegrated into the diocese and the post-conciliar "Church". Nevertheless, he also predicts that this will take place rather quickly. These thoughts cannot be attributed to Msgr. Perl simply on account of revenge for having been kept apart from the negotiations: this is the main reflection of conciliar Rome.

     Campos does not want to acknowledge it. The reality will become obvious to them quite quickly. Very likely, it will be too late. They still think that as far as Rome is concerned, this is the recognition of Tradition. But it is the contrary that has just happened. A part of Tradition, a traditional movement, has accepted, albeit it with some reservations, the post-conciliar reality. Rome feels that this is a big enough step. It must, moreover, be said that for the first time one non-dogmatic Council has been made into a criterion that determines one’s Catholicity.

     Let us wait for the publication of the final statutes of the Apostolic Administration, for they have not yet been communicated to those who are involved. The text that was read to the Campos priests on the eve of January 18 has been taken back to Rome to be improved. One word was missing. Only the traditional Mass and Breviary were foreseen. It contained nothing concerning the administration of the sacraments. Furthermore, the nomination of the Administration’s bishop is to be governed by the Church’s common law. In the choice of diocesan bishops, the Vatican is not obliged to choose a priest of the diocese. For an administration that has only 25 priests, it could easily be understood that Rome might not want to be bound by such a limitation. It is not certain that the immediate successor of Bishop Rangel will still be chosen from amongst the members of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney. However, if it is the case, it will only be by a special and diplomatic "mercy." It is also to be noted that the territorial limits of this personal Apostolic Administration are very strict: the diocese of Campos. Thus the reintegration of the priests into the diocese, which has already been announced by Msgr. Perl, will not be difficult to bring about.

     We must admit that we cannot understand how, given the present situation that we are living through, Campos could have jumped into such a chancy enterprise without taking or demanding any measure of protection. One can praise as much as one likes the advantages acquired by the new canonical structure, such as the right to the traditional Mass, and also to a traditional bishop. However, the fact remains on paper that nothing substantial has been conceded. The fragility of the administration on the one hand, and the maintaining on the other hand of the Vatican’s principle of reform, are sufficient arguments to predict the fall of Campos, despite all their declarations, made with the best of intentions. Furthermore, the lack of the virtue of Faith itself must be distinguished from the failure in the public profession of the Faith that is necessary in certain circuмstances, as Bishop De Castro Mayer reminded us so well on the day of the Episcopal consecrations. However, a failure to express the Faith such as took place at Assisi, demands such a public profession …that we did not hear coming from Campos.

     The situation would only become of special interest to us if suddenly they decided to resist and to bring about a confrontation with modernist Rome.



+  Bishop Bernard Fellay

from: http://archives.sspx.org/bishop_de_castro_mayer/campos_accordance/dr_allen_whites_open_letter.htm


An Open Letter to the priests of the Campos diocese
 
 
By Dr. David Allen White, PhD

Dr. Allen White is the author of the renowned book, The Mouth of the Lion   [available from the Angelus Press], which details the resistance of Catholic Tradition (led by the late  Bishop de Castro Mayer and his faithful priests) against Modernism in the diocese of Campos, Brazil.

In addition to his book, Dr. Allen White is a professor of literature at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD and also gives occasional lectures at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN, many of which have been recorded are available via  www.stasaudio.org.
 

 
My Brothers in Christ and My Friends,
 
With great sorrow I read today that you are now "considered perfectly inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church." I never knew you left. During those memorable days when I visited you in 1991 while doing research for my book on your great and honored Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, I had the privilege of witnessing the Catholic life of your diocese, the most perfect embodiment of the Catholic life in a contemporary setting which I have ever witnessed and so much more than I could ever imagine. What a blessing you have been granted! What extraordinary graces you have received, undoubtedly through the prayers and sacrifices and work of the unique bishop who tended the flock of Campos as shepherd for so many decades. In what way were you not then Catholic? In what way were you separated from the Church?

Your announcement that the Holy Father has signed a "letter of entrance," welcoming you "in full ecclesial communion" along with "the Catholic faithful (you) assist" suggests that there had been some separation with Rome, that you were in fact in some sort of schism. Had not the Catholic Faith been handed down intact and in perfect fullness from Our Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles and through the bishops of His Church until it came to be passed throughout the Diocese of Campos in our time by the fully Catholic Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer? What did he teach you which was not Catholic? Where did he lead you that left you separated from Rome and thus needing to "return"?

The sad fact is clear, even though the details are not yet fully revealed. You have signed an agreement with Modernist Rome and thereby turned your back on the great legacy of your great and beloved bishop who left you in April of 1991, left you because God called him home, left you secure and Catholic and well provided for. His legacy has now been compromised through the compromise which must have been made with the current power players in Modernist and Progressive Rome, distinct and separate itself from Eternal Rome. To affect a compromise, one must assume leaving one’s position and moving toward a middle ground. The position you must leave is the fullness of the Tradition of the Catholic Faith; the new position you must reach is closer to the outskirts of the New Rome, the Rome of bureaucrats and ambiguous talk and ecuмenism and collegiality and religious liberty, all the temptations and errors against which your good pastor so courageously and so comprehensively warned and instructed you.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his memorable and insightful address at the Harvard commencement ceremonies in 1978 stated that "a decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outsider observer notices in the West in our days." For many years the name of the Diocese of Campos has brought to Catholic souls battling error and decay in their own parishes, the clear and resounding call to Catholic courage. In our apostate times, perseverance becomes an act of courage. The colossal moral and spiritual stature of the small human man who was your bishop stood as a model for Catholic courage. Do you now cut his memory and legacy down to merely human size? Will the name of Campos no longer loudly ring with courage but echo distantly with compromise?

Who can doubt your discomfort or not sympathize with the loneliness you must have felt over the years? A small group of priests, organized together as the Priestly Society of St. Jean Marie Vianney, carrying on the work of Mother Church in isolation, unnoticed, ignored, except when vilified by the voices of those who long ago made their compromises. But what could be more indicative of your true role as alter Christi if not your work in loneliness and sorrow, with those mocking and derisive voices assailing you? To imagine yourselves now "inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" is no solution. You may have a few moments in bonhomie with red and scarlet and purple in the cool marble palaces of the Eternal City, but will Tradition continue in the Diocese of Campos after the compromising and celebrating? How have all other traditional groups fared once they have put themselves under the sway of Modernist Rome? I will not give you the litany of loss and change for you are already aware of it; I will just ask you where is the traditional bishop promised to the Fraternity of St. Peter fourteen years ago? Are the prelates in Modernist Rome to be trusted? Will they deliver to you on the promises they have made? I quote the wise Solzhenitsyn again, "Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

You have announced that in a solemn ceremony to be held in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior by His Eminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon, Prefect of the Holy Congregation for the Clergy, in the name of the Holy Father, the pope, on the 18th January, there will be a reading of docuмents and the singing of the Te Deum. The 18th of January also begins the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" decreed by Rome which will culminate in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on January 24th, the second such ecuмenical outrage in recent years, a kind of gathering condemned, as you well know, by earlier popes. Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in a joint statement with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre spoke with the voice of Roman Catholic Tradition in condemning the gathering of religions at Assisi in October of 1987 [sic; the event actually occurred in 1986], the first such outrageous ecuмenical prayer venture. Have you forgotten his wise and proscriptive words? Will you now join your hands in prayer with Modernist Rome as it openly violates the First Commandment of God and prays with Lutherans and Anglicans and Muslims and Deists and animists in defiance of Catholic Tradition and then will you pretend still to be traditionalists? Have you forgotten your own words when in your public Profession of Faith in 1982 you rejected "the ecuмenism that makes the Faith grow cold and makes us forget our Catholic identity, seeking to negate the antagonism between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial..." ?

You may protest that you will maintain Traditionalism in your diocese, that you will still celebrate the Mass of All Time and teach the old catechisms and carry on in the traditional ways. But do you not understand that in compromising you accept an absurd contradiction, an illogical proposition that any sane mind must condemn - that Mother Church in Her Divine Authority can teach contradictory ideas at different times and pretend they are both true. How can your Traditionalism co-exist with Modernism? How can the Mass of All Time be equivalent with the newfangled human contrivance? How can Catholics be forbidden from ecuмenical prayer at one time and then encouraged in such actions at a later time? As Hamlet says, when staring at the skull of Yorick, the "gorge rises at it." Such a stark and deadly affront to reason is horrifying. Are you now willing to play this absurd Modernist game with Modernist Rome? Many weary and troubled Catholics will feel the weight of your decision. Already the remarks are circulating that you have "sold out" and "caved in" and "given up". The truth is you have abandoned reason. [/b] May I remind you of the words of a prayer you have often prayed? "...Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum..."  As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end.

In his courageous statement of June 30, 1988, in Econe, on the occasion of the consecration of traditional bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, your courageous Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in his message of support and unity spoke the following words:  


It is sorrowful to see the lamentable blindness of so many confreres in the Episcopacy and the priesthood, who do not see, or who do not wish to see, the present crisis in order to be faithful to the mission which God has confided to us, to resist the modernism at present ruling.

You no longer "wish to see the present crisis"; you no longer wish "to resist the modernism at present ruling." By your action of compromise with the "modernism at present ruling," you have increased the sorrow of your great bishop; you have increased the sorrow of your devoted friends. Our Lord in His agony in the garden certainly suffered from the hatred of His enemies, but such suffering was nothing compared to the certain knowledge that He would be betrayed and denied by His friends and disciples.  

Be assured of my prayers.

 
In Christ,

David Allen White
 
 

Now, I ask, just replace the word Campos with the Neo-SSPX, and the name of Bishop Rifan with Bishop Fellay, and read all the articles again, the situation is IDENTICAL in every point highlighted, even Dr. David Allen Whites letter (he is now with Bp. Williamson and against the accord).

Bump.  And you could replace Bishop Castro de Mayer with Archbishop Lefebvre.