Mr. McFarland, you claim deafening silence from your opposition, but I claim you are deaf to the evidence that Menzingen has become diabolically disoriented and no longer has the will to vigilantly defend the faith:
What Bishop Fellay said in the CNS interview:
1) Those things we thought came from VII, we see from the negotiations, that they do not come from VII but from a false hermeneutic.
2) After all, the religious liberty of VII is a very narrow religious liberty!
3) To the question, is VII part of the church's tradition: I hope so!
From the DICI interview:
1) To the prospect of difficulties (i.e. restrictions on the Society's apostolate) arising from putting the society under the control of the NO bishops: the flippant answer, "Since when is life without difficulties?" As though the inability to minister to lost souls is after all a small matter!
2) When it is suggested that closer collaboration with the NO as a regularized entity might result in NO bishops coming to SSPX chapels and seminaries to say Mass, confirm, or ordain priests, he does not rule out the possibility.
At ordinations in Econe:
1) Bishop Fellay was unable to make critical distinctions, a) between actually being Catholic and being recognized as Catholic by the conciliar Roman authorities, b) between eternal Rome and conciliar Rome.
2) Evinced an emotional longing for recognition that is divorced from the reality that those whose recognition he longs for are objectively (not subjectively) heretics.
3)Cruelly refused ordinations at the last minute to properly prepared men with unquestioned vocations to the priesthood on the basis of a disagreement with their superiors as to the prudence of making a deal with apostate Rome.
Bishop Fellay's response to the objections of the other three bishops to a deal without doctrinal agreement was to parrot the Novus Ordo canard of the last 40-plus years that principled resistors to the destruction wrought by the conciliar popes are nothing more than schismatics and sedevacantists.
What Bishop Fellay as been publicly willing to do:
1) Put the Society under the authority of the NO bishops, conceding them the power to deny expansion of the society's apostolate, and according to Bp. Tissier, including the right to review "recent foundations."
2) Submit to an agreement that unilaterally excludes the other three bishops who, as Rome clearly stated, would be dealt with "singularly and separately. Thus Bishop Fellay chooses to embrace conciliar Rome at the inexcusable cost of the unity of the Society.
3) In contrast to the example set by the founder of the society, pursue extended negotiations with the declared enemies of the faith and of the Society in utter secrecy, apparently excluding even the other three bishops from the particulars of his efforts to singlehandedly turn the Society over to conciliar Rome.
4) Authorize the publication by Fr. Iscara of the shameful St. Basil's Economy of Silence with Heretics, and an overview of the history of heresies in the church which purports to prove that this crisis is no different than past crises in the church and requires a long slow work of reformation from the inside. This new argument directly contradicts the society's own publication, "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" and subverts Our Blessed Mother's promise of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.
5) Resort to the same specious tactics adopted by the enemies of the faith and of Christ's church, demanding obedience to his person and his authority as above all principles and exigencies, and in contradiction to right reason, characterizing disobedience as equivalent to schism and the error of sedevacantism.
Really, Mr. McFarland, in the face of what should qualify as scandalous departure from the spirit of and direction set by the Society's founder by the time of his death, how is one to understand your intractable commitment to the new course set by Bishop Fellay?
In retrospect, we can question the willingness of Bishop Fellay to oppose the specific instruction of Archbishop Lefebvre that the four bishops he ordained NOT hold the office of Superior General. Furthermore, Bishop Fellay, on his election to replace Father Schmidberger, pointed out that it would be an extraordinary thing for the Superior General to serve more than one term, and thus it was normal for Fr. Schmidberger to be replaced. Developments seem to have borne out the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre and the wisdom of maintaining a normal rotation of Superiors General.