Fr Cekada posted the following

His own observations

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10172

This makes some interesting points. The bottom line seems to be: The bottom line: Bp. Fellay will win the internal power struggle over the accord; even though there has been vocal internal opposition, if +Fellay signs, few members will leave; the various zig-zags of the past few weeks were merely a way of preparing people for the accord, which is more or less a done deal.

Then the link he makes reference to. (French)
http://tradinews.blogspot.com/2012/07/spo-...s-rebelles.html


My own view is this General Chapter will be a non event and a deal is inevitable. It's a matter of time. The deal appears off for now but Father Cekada is correct in some ways.

The majority of priests stationed in Ireland are pro-agreement. Few members will leave.Few laity will leave for two reasons.

Firstly, we are dealing with very small numbers. Some Irish chapels have a few dozen people attending. The SSPX have lost chapels in Ireland instead of gaining chapels.

Secondly, people have attended these chapels for decades and invested thousands of punt and now euro. They will hardly give them up without a fight. It will be inevitable if a deal is signed, Diocesan Bishops will be brought in for confirmations etc etc.

It is beyond doubt the SSPX have been preparing the flock for a deal.

Ireland has been a country that has suited both Indult (Summorum Pontificuм) and the SSPX. No real Independent chapels have emerged.

The SSPX need to remain independent of Rome and local Bishops. To be absorbed into NewChurch would mean all their apostolate would of been in vain.

It's worrying to think of a scenario of the likes of Bishop Williamson being expelled yet some pro-sodomite Bishop, a self style 'friend of the extra ordinary form' being brought in to a Society chapel for confirmations.

John,
 
You are probably right about the chapter. Judging from Bishop Fellay's recent, and not so recent, actions,I do not think he would have allowed the Chapter if he was in any peril and its end was not a foregone conclusion. As was floated before ,they are likely to announce the structure and terms of the agreement, not debate it.
But one must pause to remember the statements and activities of Bishops Mueller, and DiNoia.  How does Bishop Fellay get around it when they have truly blown away any cover or ambiquity surrounding Rome's intentions to reconfigure the Society?  It seems that it will be much harder, if not impossible, to convince priests who are wavering and concerned that it would be a good thing to move forward. But the current crop of priests has been conditioned to this over the last ten years.
I would also think that some opposers might have kept quite so as not to be excluded from the Chapter? However, Bishop Fellay could simply refuse to acknowledge the Chapter's authority to deny his power to do as he wills.
That being in accordance with the groundwork of statements claiming his sole authority within the Society.

And the piece on Fr Pfluger

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=18567&min=60

New material has emerged regarding Dello Sarto

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9298
Quote:
In light of all the recent evidence of the society heading towards a “marriage” with Concilliar Rome, I thought that it might be a worthwhile exercise to revisit some of the companies specific to Switzerland and Germany, that the hierarchy of the Society “own” or are directors/presidents thereof. Swiss company records give a lot more “free” information than other countries, so it is more transparent to find relevant information, without having to pay for that information as in other countries. Swiss company records are still limited insofar as they require a fee to check on shareholder information, company returns and such. Therefore in order to do detailed research of these companies one needs to outlay significant fees, and so for the moment we have to rely on the free information.

What would be the purpose of revisiting this? Hopefully we can build up more of this puzzle. The society is possibly embarking on massive changes, and perhaps a second glance at these companies by the intelligent IA community may help with the puzzle, and maybe we can understand if motives are good or otherwise. Not implying that there is anything wrong per se, but rather let’s examine the [factual] evidence.

There has been an obvious flurry of corporate activity especially since late 2008 by the SSPX. The most controversial one is Dello Sarto AG, a fully paid commercial company with a working capital of CHF100,000.
See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/g/dello_sa...3.033.031-9.htm

Controversial in that a lay person has been appointed with single signature authority and is a member of the Administrative board, and sole member of the Management board. Furthermore, that lay person has very close business ties to another person who represents a company that is auditor to Dello Sarto. Yes, he is the same person who appears to have gone out of his way to destroy Bishop Williamson’s reputation. The other person with single signature authority is +BF, and the other two Priests – Frs. Pfluger and Baudot require each of their respective signatures. Conjecture: The lawyer layman, it appears, is more trustworthy than the two Priests to be have been given single signatory authority.

The stated purpose of Dello Sarto is (google translated): “Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, particularly of natural and legal persons who are of Catholic morals, religion and morality in their traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects of all kinds, especially construction projects for the persons named, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose paraphrase statutes in accordance with”

Then there is the German trust “Jaidhofer Private Foundation” a SSPX entity that the same lawyer as above uses/lists as his sponsor for the EMBA Global (Business School). As with many private foundations or trusts, the internal structure, beneficiaries, trustees can be made opaque to external eyes. For lack of a better word, that information is secret.

Both Dello Sarto and Jaidhofer were set up in 2008 to begin operation in 2009.

Another SSPX company that was curious was STPI Société Tradition Patrimoine Immobilier Sàrl. It has a fully paid up capital of CHF160,000 requiring the signatures of two of the following: +BF, and Frs. Baudot and Schmidberger. The current shareholders are: “The share capital of CHF 160'000 now consists of 160 shares of CHF 1,000, held by Bernard Fellay, Schmidberger Franz, now in Stuttgart (Germany), Alfonso Genua Galarreta and Niklaus Pfluger, Menzingen now, all four each with 40 shares of CHF 1,000 (previously every four each with a share of CHF 40,000). Emeric Baudot was elected chairman of the managers.”

See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/stpi_socie...1.031.472-9.htm

It was originally set up in 2002 with the following aim: [translated]“buying, selling, brokerage, management, promotion and enhancement of buildings, including that it can make available to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for its activities, and any real estate, management and administration of securities of all kinds.”

There has been a subtle change in the company’s statutes: [translated] “Statutes updated on 9 November 2010. Obligation to provide ancillary benefits, preferential rights, preemptive or emption: for details, see the articles.”

Obviously one needs to sight the articles for explanation of these changes, but the wording appears to be consistent with providing the shareholders (or other parties) with distributions and/or other benefits. Curious that this clause was added – and again – it was after 2008/2009.

There is also a USA connection, yet this too is limited on the information that can be found out.

See: http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/El-Pa...c/32030676.aspx

You can go through other US States besides Texas, and you will also see +BF, Frs. Schmidberger and Baudot as part of the organizations.

What does this all mean? Perhaps nothing. But as I stated in the beginning, in the light of current activities, maybe this is now telling us something new?

Let's not forget this regarding Fr Pfluger
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=18567&min=60

Quote

A participant on another forum mentions this from Fr N Pfluger. Fr N Pfluger is an associate of Max Krah.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=9296&view=getnewpost
Quote:
Father N. Pfluger gave last Sunday (29. 4. 2012) a speech in Hattersheim/Germany about a possible agreement with Rome.

In his speech Fr. Pfluger explained that Msgr. Fellay does no longer insist on a clarification of the theological differences between the Conciliar Church and the SSPX before an agreement could be accepted.

The reason for this change is, that the Pope is personally so interested in an agreement, that he does no longer demand the acceptance of Vatican Council II or the NOM from the SSPX. He is also ready to give the SSPX full autonomy from the bishops.

If the society doesn’t accept this offer, then it has to expect a new excommunication on the grounds of schism.

In his letter from April 15th, Msgr. Fellay wrote, that he would accept this new offer and announced an agreement if Rome really doesn’t demand anything more.


Agreement with Rome, even without doctrinal agreement

http://www.spes-unica.de/aktuell/nachrichten/2012/120501_abkommen/

John,

It actually appears that the situation is turning out to be that the Society will no longer demand doctrinal orthodoxy and Rome will indeed demand that the Society submit to doctrinal heterodoxy=acceptance of Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, and the Judaic narrative of Catholicity.

Michael Wilson posted the following.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10172

Quote

Essentially the article is stating that +Fellay still desires to make a deal with Rome; that the two moves that he recently made: 1. The excluding of +Williamson from the G.C. and not ordaining the members of the religious orders opposed to the deal 2. The rejecting of the last proposed preamble. Where just manouvers to appease Rome by the first and the SSPX priests and faithful by the Second.
But all in the name of preparing everyone for an eventual accord.
That +Fellay has the backing of enough of the members of the G.C. To resist any move to remove him.
The article goes on to state that there is about 2/3 of the members that are in favor of an accord and about 1/3 opposed. That even if an accord is signed, very few of the "hard liners" will actually leave; and they quote as evidence Fr. Xavier Beauvais, who stated that: "I am against an agreement but that I wouldn't go against an agreement"

I don't believe Dawn Marie in relation to this

Quote

It's called propaganda by LaCroix.

They know the General Chapter began today. This looks like they want to sway it's outcome, much like politicians and media outlets do here in the states before and during elections.

Hopefully whatever emerges from this General Chapter will be that which is most pleasing to Our Lord and Our Lady, nothing more nothing less.



As an aside, last I heard, Father's Nely and Phluger were no longer in agreement with +Fellay on an agreement.

Let's hope they keep that stand.

With the 'Williamson Affair' and with 'Krahgate' it became obvious the 'hard liners' are  few and far between.

A deal is a reality and resisting clerics will be expelled. Of course Bishop Fellay still desires a deal with Rome.

I find it hard to believe myself John, considering what Fr. Phluger has done over the last several years including the 10 page hate filled letter given to Bishop Williamson.

Having said that I do not discount it totally because Fr. Phluger may at least have a modicuм of common sense to recognize that the opposition is to overwhelming for them to get away with it.

Quote from: John Grace

Michael Wilson posted the following.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10172

Quote

Essentially the article is stating that +Fellay still desires to make a deal with Rome; that the two moves that he recently made: 1. The excluding of +Williamson from the G.C. and not ordaining the members of the religious orders opposed to the deal 2. The rejecting of the last proposed preamble. Where just manouvers to appease Rome by the first and the SSPX priests and faithful by the Second.
But all in the name of preparing everyone for an eventual accord.
That +Fellay has the backing of enough of the members of the G.C. To resist any move to remove him.
The article goes on to state that there is about 2/3 of the members that are in favor of an accord and about 1/3 opposed. That even if an accord is signed, very few of the "hard liners" will actually leave; and they quote as evidence Fr. Xavier Beauvais, who stated that: "I am against an agreement but that I wouldn't go against an agreement"

I don't believe Dawn Marie in relation to this

Quote

It's called propaganda by LaCroix.

They know the General Chapter began today. This looks like they want to sway it's outcome, much like politicians and media outlets do here in the states before and during elections.

Hopefully whatever emerges from this General Chapter will be that which is most pleasing to Our Lord and Our Lady, nothing more nothing less.



As an aside, last I heard, Father's Nely and Phluger were no longer in agreement with +Fellay on an agreement.

Let's hope they keep that stand.

With the 'Williamson Affair' and with 'Krahgate' it became obvious the 'hard liners' are  few and far between.

A deal is a reality and resisting clerics will be expelled. Of course Bishop Fellay still desires a deal with Rome.

I find it hard to believe myself John, considering what Fr. Phluger has done over the last several years including the 10 page hate filled letter given to Bishop Williamson.

Having said that I do not discount it totally because Fr. Phluger may at least have a modicuм of common sense to recognize that the opposition is to overwhelming for them to get away with it.

I don't dispute they realise there is opposition.

Why does anyone need to waste time speculating now? We'll know all in one week, when the General Chapter meeting is over.

Why does anyone need to waste time speculating now? We'll know all in one week, when the General Chapter meeting is over.

It isn't speculation it was a fair and honest question to a post I made on another forum but which was posted here.