CathInfo.com

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/05/sspxrome-accord-is-a-split-inevitable/

This translation seems to vary a great deal, to be rather "free" and more slanted than the literal translation from the French.

Quote

Letters between Bishop Fellay the other three SSPX bishops …

 (1)  Letter of Bishops Tissier de Mallerais, de Galarreta and Williamson

The SSPX General Council has for months been considering Roman proposals for a practical accord, and this letter is to state our unanimous formal opposition to such an accord.

Of course there are honest folk on both sides, but all must admit that the Church’s authorities have separated themselves from Catholic truth and are more determined than ever to continue as such, as recent events (Assisi III) have shown.

The profound problem which Catholics face was characterised by Archbishop Lefebvre as a continuation of the papal fight against liberal Catholicism over the last two hundred years and against the attempt to reconcile the Church and the Modern World. His conclusion was that Vatican II did not just include particular errors but represented a total perversion of the mind, a new philosophy founded on subjectivism.

Benedict XVI is no better than John Paul II in this regard, as Bishop Tissier’s study of his thought (La Foi au Péril de la Raison) has shown: he puts human subjective fantasy in the place of God’s objective reality and subjects the Church to the modern world. How can a practical agreement sort out this problem?

If Benedict XVI is benevolent towards Tradition, he can afford to be since he is a subjectivist. But if liberal subjectivists can tolerate truth, they cannot tolerate truth which refuses to tolerate error; and they will not tolerate it if it condemns the Council’s doctrine. So no practical agreement can be made which will not involve gradually silencing the Society’s critique of the Council and the New Mass. The Society would then cease to oppose the universal apostasy of our time, and who would protect it from the Roman Curia and the bishops? Benedict XVI?

This slide will be inevitable, and already confession of the Faith is the exception rather than the rule. Many decent people begged Archbishop Lefebvre to make an agreement in 1988 and to extend thus his apostolate, but he refused, saying to us that it would be ambiguous and that the Society and Rome would be working in opposite directions and that this would make us rot. How can an agreement be made now and the Society not rot in contradiction?

When Rome later made benevolent gestures, the Archbishop was still wary. He feared that such actions were simply strategies to draw back as many of the faithful as possible and he told us to beware of this very danger: we have not fought for so long against errors only now to put ourselves into the hands of those who profess those errors. More than denouncing errors, the Society’s role is to oppose the Roman authorities which spread them. So will the Society now put itself into the hands of those whose obstinacy (in error) we have recent witnessed again?

Beware. You are leading the Society to an irreversible split, and if you make an accord it will have powerfully destructive forces which the Society will not be able to stand. Since the situation has not been changed and the condition of the 2006 General Chapter not met (doctrinal change in Rome), listen to our Founder who was right 25 years ago, as now. Do not make a purely practical accord.


Bishops de Galaretta, Tissier de Mallerais and Williamson.

SSPX/Rome Accord – is a split inevitable?
May 14, 2012 in bishops, doctrine, Liturgy, Papacy, pope benedict, second vatican council, sspx by editor | 38 comments
The following letters were leaked – nobody seems to know by whom  – but they appear to be authentic, not least since the authenticity of the letters has not been refuted by the authors although the leak has been condemned in an official statement

When I read these letters, my immediate response was that Bishop Fellay is right. Absolutely.  What do you think?  I’m sticking with Bishop Fellay come what may. What about you?

Oremus,

I have to admit that, although I posted the link to the SSPX statement which you quote, the request not to respond to the leaked letters did not register with me or I wouldn’t have posted this discussion. Interestingly, without having read that exhortation, my first instinct was NOT to publish and, indeed, I only changed my mind when reading comments in the blogosphere on the subject. Now that we have published the letters here, I am hopeful that our discussion will help to change the minds of those who are opposed to Bishop Fellay, since, judging by the blogosphere to date, they seem to be in the majority.

There is no question of any “gossip” here. All comments so far have rightly focused only on what is now in the public domain, and are centred on seeking to reach a correct conclusion.

It is clear that Bishop Williamson, lamentably, has quite a following – one of the reasons being that there are, unfortunately, people who are quite happy with the present situation. They’re often, though not always, the same people, in my experience, who do not welcome newcomers to the SSPX chapels. They do not have a genuinely Catholic spirit. Perhaps, please God, our bloggers will help to make some of those opposed to Bishop Fellay think again