with the goal of dividing
“There are some discrepancies in the society,” said Bishop Bernard Fellay. “I cannot exclude that there might be a split.”
Bishop Fellay went against the advice of the three bishops, and started making moves that would have put the SSPX at the mercy of the conciliar establishment, which he himself admitted could cause a split.
He is the one who was working to bring about a result that would send the Archbishop's work to ruin, without regard for the damage and confusion and opposition it would provoke from his own priests and bishops.
What bishop? - A bishop that would meet the Vatican's requirements? In that case, they will have a bishop who gently, gently will bring them round to the Council - that's obvious. They will never obtain a bishop who is fully Traditional, opposed to the errors of the Council and to the post-Conciliar reforms. That is why the Fraternity of St. Peter did not, in fact, sign the same protocol as we did, because they do not have a bishop.
And indeed, in Bishop Fellay, now the SSPX has such a bishop, whereas the other three bishops, who are told to shut-up
Once again, I do not think it possible for a community to remain faithful to the Faith and Tradition if the bishops do not have this Faith and fidelity to Tradition. It's impossible. Say what you will, the Church consists first and foremost of bishops. Even if the priests are of your way of thinking, the priests are influenced by the bishops. Whichever way you look at it, the bishops make the priests, and so guide priests, either in the seminaries or in preaching or in retreats or in any number of ways. It is impossible to maintain Tradition with progressive bishops.
How often have we heard Bishop Fellay speak of requests for SSPX "help" - who can but roll their eyes at this talk?
Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.
And then there are the lies, the suggestion that so many of the non-sedevacantists are really "practical sedevacantists" - because they don't unquestioningly follow Bishop Fellay! Why the Fellay apologists have come on this forum and asked us "where is the visible Church"
This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.
We could go on and on and on and on.
But what these people can do is never answer the argument, and never stop shifting their positions, and they are the ones who rely on never-ending calumnies - as they flagrantly disregard what the Archbishop taught.