Who knows how long +Fellay has been working with Rome, but the secrecy involved in all these negotiations even from the other bishops indicate that he knew what he was doing. Treason indeed! The Faith should never be defended in secrecy, it should be defended openly and from the housetops, when have we read about any saint defending the Faith in this manner? On the other hand, to get away with treason, you have to demand secrecy.
There is no opposition from the left because they are confident in their Judas Goat.
But Bp Fellay has hit a roadblock by using the phrase "errors of Vatican II" in his reply to the Preamble. What can he do now, change it to "accepting Vatican II in the light of Tradition?" Such a phrase would obviously mean that one can accept Vatican II in another light. Will the Conciliarists accept such a phrase or do they want Bp Fellay to accept Vatican II unconditionally? His secrecy has not prevented him from landing in this soup.
Hope the other three bishops will lead the call for his removal at the forthcoming General Chapter and also that the new SG will remove all the district superiors who played on his team.
This is a loaded post.
I am generally dismayed at how common the opinion is that +Fellay cannot possibly
accept terms from Rome in which he agrees with Vatican II in any way. Boy, are
they in for a shocker! I even know a medical doctor who refuses to believe that
the video from CNS in Menzingen is real, the one where +Fellay says that DH
describes a religious liberty that is "limited! Very limited!" And that the parts of Vat II
that the Society used to say cannot be accepted were a matter of misunderstanding,
and that a proper understanding would be acceptable. I told my friend that these
two things are on public record, and tried to tell him that Fr. Pfeiffer gave a great
sermon in the Philippines mentioning these two acts of treason, but my doctor
friend refuses to believe it because I saw the videos on the Internet. He retorts
that nothing you see on the Internet is reliable! Can you imagine that?
And he's a doctor of medicine for 40 plus years.
You have touched on a very crucial point, perhaps without knowing it. You said
that he hit a roadblock with "errors of Vatican II."
I think I know why that's such a roadblock. Sure, there are errors in Vat II that
these Modernists don't want to discuss. But that's just the tip of the iceberg!
The looming behemouth under the surface is this: before, during and after
Vat II there has been a PACT WITH THE DEVIL, that REQUIRES the reigning
pope to make absolutely sure that no discussion of doctrine takes place.
In order to accomplish this, there has been no condemnation of error after
Pope Pius XII died. In fact, John XXIII announced the plan in 1962, the day
the Council opened, on October 11th.
That is how Vatican II was able to promulgate errors, because there was a
diabolical disorientation by which the Pope would not execute his most essential
role as Vicar of Christ -- you don't hear that term any more, do you? When I
was in 3rd grade, they were still saying "The Pope is the Vicar of Christ" in
religion class, but it STOPPED DEAD that year. And the year was 1963, just as
soon as the new teaching could be disseminated worldwide, after the Pope made
his PACT WITH THE DEVIL effective by the Opening Speech of Vatican II.
You see, the devil always requires a public act for his most serious power plays.
That's why devil worship ceremonies have to leave the mutilated corpses of the
victims in plain sight, with the burned candles in a circle around them, because
the devil requires them to leave the evidence or else the power is not granted.
And so as not to disappoint my two most fervent critics (who can't read this
anyway because they're Ignoring me -- until their friends tell them to check out
this post so they unignore me long enough to post once then ignore me again)
you can bet this is to be found in the Third Secret, or I'll eat my hat!