I vaguely remember Father Pfeiffer mentioning that when most of the religious of a religious community in France came over to the resistance, +Fellay opened another one with the same name in Belgium to accommodate the ones that did not come over to the Resistance. I think it was the Dominicans, but I am not 100% sure (poor memory). Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this.
Yes, that sounds about right - at least generally speaking. I think that is what the article above is referring to here, though it is not totally clear from the google translation. (And a lot of times, it seems these French articles assume some prior knowledge.):
One last fact to grasp how far can the vertigo of domination. On November 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay decided after returning to his commitment, 5 perpetually professed religious of the Dominican Avrillé who were outside the convent community must come together in a house to become a "second leg" to Steffeshausen. Bishop Fellay named Bishop Galarreta top of this house. Written to Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta asking them to show "how such a procedure can be called according to Tradition, the right of religious and even natural law" letters went unanswered.
The "5 perpetually professed religious of the Dominican Avrillé" were already "outside the convent community" for quite some time, as I understand it, because they disagree with the hard-line stance of the Dominicans. The SSPX opened a house in Belgium for them. Initially, Bp. Fellay was said to have promised Father Prior of Avrillé that it would be under the umbrella of the Dominicans - can't recall exactly; there was an article somewhere on La Sapinière or Non Possumus or somewhere about this, but I can't find it right now - but it was something like they promised that the Dominicans would choose the prior of the new monastery, or something like that, but then reneged on the promise. As it says in the above article, "Bishop Fellay named Bishop Galarreta top of this house." How can a bishop of a separate priestly fraternity be the head of a house of Dominican religious?
[And I am guessing that this: "Written to Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta asking them to show "how such a procedure can be called according to Tradition, the right of religious and even natural law" letters went unanswered." refers to Father Prior writing to them.]
I am no expert on the Dominican rule, or canon law with respect to religious orders, but from what I understand, Menzingen (and the 5 renegade monks) are violating such rules right and left. Also, I think that much of this has been in the works for quite some time; i.e. if you think of the Dominicans having "come over to the resistance" by that January docuмent, obviously all the happenings referred to above have been going on for a while. (And may have been part of the incentive to sign that January docuмent.) I think the 5 monks have not been in Avrillé for quite a while. Although I stand to be corrected on all of this - "(poor memory)" too! :geezer:
Hopefully someone closer to the situation can clarify things.