Which Bishop Fellay should we listen to - the one who spoke today or the one who spoke the following in 2006:

DICI: What then? Is the canonical agreement to be postponed indefinitely?

Bishop Fellay: There is talk of apostolic administration, personal prelature, ordinariate… All this seems premature. To desire an immediate canonical agreement at any cost would expose us to see an immediate resurgence of the problems opposing us to Rome, and the agreement would at once become null and void. The regularization of our canonical status must come last, as if to seal an agreement previously achieved, at least in its essentials, on the level of principles, thanks to the facts observed by Rome.

Besides, let us imagine for a moment that we accept a canonical structure only to consider the doctrinal issues afterwards – inside, in the “visible perimeter” of the dioceses –, we would not be able to accomplish our ministry with all its pastoral efficacy. The practical conditions would not be there to allow a full and entire lesson from the facts, i.e. a convincing lesson. As such is already the case with the Ecclesia Dei communities, our traditional apostolate would be on probation, and allowed to show itself parsimoniously here and there, in dribs and drabs.

The crux of the question is whether the tragic situation of the Church today – the impressive crisis of vocations, the drastic drop of religious practice – allows her to be satisfied with remedies so sparingly applied.

http://www.fsspx.org/en/organization/the-general-superior/interviews/a_the-stages-of-the-dialogue-between-rome-and-the-sspx/

Thank you, Ecclesia Militans.  It just goes to prove that what Fr. Girouard said about "catching the illness" is sadly becoming true in the case of +Fellay. :sad:    

I have two comments:

1.  What did Summorum Pontificuм do?  It confirmed that the traditional Mass was never abrogated then it declared it to be a Mass to be tolerated as an exception.  It declared priests are "free" to say this Mass then it laid down numeous rules and restrictions under which priests must follow to exercise this "freedom".

2.  Someone else said it better on another forum:

I was alarmed by several things in this interview, things which I thought were rather glaring and carried overtones which are incompatible with the traditional understanding of the Church:

Quote

Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. This new awareness can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve.

While he isn't wrong to say that the Church cannot be reduced to any one given council, nevertheless, it almost seems like he is downplaying the importance of the doctrinal issues at stake - especially given that he says they must "strive to resolve more far-reaching problems" - what could be more far reaching than the Church teaching heresy as legitimate doctrine? Also, speaking of "reading between the lines," downplaying the import of any council of the Church I see as dangerous to the Faith. If the councils are one of the primary means of the Magisterium to instruct the faithful of the Church's official teaching, is it not dangerous to denigrate any council's importance? Does it not set a precedent, or give grounds for rejecting or calling into question the legitimacy of any other council of the Church, on the grounds that the Church is "much larger" than any one given council?

Quote

One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality. It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors. Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat.

At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now. Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic. But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?

Keeping in mind that I received my B.A. from St. Marys college and went through their apologetics classes at a time in my life where such information was bound to make an impression, being a new "revert" to tradition, I was saddened to see him equate the modern heresies and apostasies of our time with other turmoil within the Church, putting the plethora of heresies on a level with selling indulgences, clerical marriage, and simony - if I learned the vast difference between heresy on the part of a prelate, v. sin on the part of a prelate, and that in Apologetics 101, from SSPX priests, shouldn't he know it?

- at least, that is what my initial thought was until I began the second paragraph in the quote, wherein it is obvious that, contrary to traditional teaching, he considers the Arian heretic bishops to yet have been in the Church and teaching on Her behalf. While this line of thinking is a natural progression of their current understanding of how a heretic can still hold authority in the Church, it further proves the inherent danger of their theological position, the underlying premise that Church is in fact defectible and can teach error in her official capacity. Naturally, their complete disregard for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium plays right into this premise.

The problem is that the SSPX totes itself as being traditional, so even though these ideas are novel, and absolutely not traditional, we have a vast majority of SSPXers who read this interview and don't see anything wrong with it. I see that as a big, big issue for tradition in general. If the majority of traditionalists aren't in fact traditional, where does that leave tradition from the perspective of the Novus Ordo -what exactly is the SSPX hoping the Novus Ordo will convert to?

Bishop Fellay has changed!!! Of course he himself knows he has to change in order to fit into the cupcake mold that Rome wants him to fit into. You have to change inside and out in order to conform to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

I remember a Novus Ordo "priest" of the LA diocese told me that his boss told him that he has potential and that he can get into high places, IF and only if, he would give up his conservative way of thinking.

This is just an edited dress rehearsal for what is about to happen. Fellay and his band of "dough" boys have to go before the whole thing rots!

Immunity doesn't matter when Fellay has already compromised on Truth, in his signature suave manner.

In an e-mail this is what a very senior cleric has said:

You stay strong by playing the man, by using your reason on your Faith, and by quietly praying the Holy Rosary. Menzingen has by now completely discredited itself. Pay no attention to its nonsense, except to remain persuaded that it is churning out nonsense.

Lovely, AJNC. Thanks for sharing this with us! God bless the senior clerics of the SSPX and in particular this very senior cleric.
They should lead the SSPX, not the youngster who're politicians, and who today say the opposite of what they said yesterday (like all democrats do).

Shortly after that first eye-opening , a senior cleric from the resistance said privately :

I just hope that Bp. Fellay gives some more nonsense interviews like his last [CNS] one, because then more superiors would wake up.

Well, dear senior cleric, your wish came true with the newest DICI interview. It is, as you say in America, a doozy!

Unfortunately it's not sure at all if more superiors really will wake up. But for sure Bp. Fellay risks his neck with careless talk, and all SSPX clerics who still think straight get many chances to see what's wrong with the SSPX leadership and how they should act: keep up the Faith and resist the modernist New-Rome including the New-Pope.

Heaven help us!

The smart John Lane unmasked the swindler yesterday. So John actually answered my above question in advance -- thank you.
Bishop Fellay is much more slippery than I initially imagined. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I promise, you won't fool me again, bishop.

John wrote the excellent booklet: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis, amongst others.
Why is John not here on Cathinfo?  :scratchchin: Because of peasants like me? Anyway, here's his post (bold by me) :

Ignis Ardens[/u]]
8. Juni 2012, 02:51 AM

[..]
Consider another hypothesis, that the deal really is in trouble in Rome.

Bishop Fellay knows this, and wonders if it will die and he will be left with an internal disaster and no gain from the exercise. What does he do?

First, he established long ago the principle that any failure of the deal will not be the fault of the Fraternity. So anything he says or does must conform to that agenda. He can't call it off.

Second, he would try and undo some of the division he has caused. What are the causes of division? 1. Contradicting Archbishop Lefebvre on Dignitatis Humanae. 2. Accusing anybody against the deal of "sedevacantism." 3. Speaking of a potential split in a blase manner, as if he didn't care. 4. Abandoning the principle of no canonical agreement without doctrinal agreement. 5. The impression that Bishop Fellay and Benedict have directly negotiated something and that they are just waiting for the storm to blow over before it is announced. 6. The impression that there must already exist an agreement with details which are acceptable to Bishop Fellay, since he has been so confident that a deal will happen.

The interview conducted with DICI, his own organ, deals with all of these things in a manner designed to smooth them over. Keep in mind this is not a real interview. It's a prepared text in question-and-answer format which probably went through dozens of drafts.

1. He backtracks on Dignitatis Humanae, delicately, and blames CNS [Catholic News Service].
2. He backtracks on his accusation of "sedevacantism" and assigns a totally different cause to the opposition. "But I really think that the main concern among us is rather the question of trust in the Roman authorities, with the fear that what might happen would be a trap."
3. He no longer foresees a split, not even by bishop Williamson, but hopes that the bishops will remain with the Fraternity.
4. He blurrs the question of whether a principle has been abandoned, and simply asserts that "rome" has shifted position.
5. He reveals that he has had no direct contact with Benedict!
6. He says that the details are not yet known to him and are being worked on in Rome.

Then his last words, and last words are always chosen carefully, emphasise that whether or not there will be an agreement is unknown, and we must all pray. So that's the take-away from the "interview."

It's a revolting text in many ways, as I've said elsewhere, but what's its true purpose?

 

A very thought-provoking analysis of this interview has been undertaken by CANTATE DOMINO a poster on the Ignis Ardens forum. Here it is:


+FELLAY: So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us.

OBSERVATION: This is simply not true. First, it has been clearly demonstrated over the past several months, especially on this forum, through the work of dedicated Catholics who have a zeal for truth and an ability to locate and produce, almost on call, archived materials, and relevant analysis - which is, by the way, the ONLY thing that edifies me these days - that, over the past few years, the SSPX has morphed itself into absolute unrecognizability.

I tell you what. I'm starting to get mad now. I'm getting really mad. I'm sick and tired of being lied to and manipulated like a sheeple. I'm mad as hell.

Secondly, it takes two to tango. Menzingen has been doing a two-step with the Vatican for twelve long, increasingly disgusting years. The more one steps back from it, the easier it is to see that the entire psy-op, Rosary Crusades and all, has been minutely scripted for the piggish, money-giving, unwashed masses. This is nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr soft-kill pio-modo. I'm mad as hell.

+FELLAY: You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us!

OBSERVATION: See what he does. He throws the ball into the Pope's court, hoping no one will see what he is doing. His propaganda line is this: We do not change! The Pope changes! We merely respond to the Pope.

Many on this forum have called this bishop a politician. Well, politicians tell lies, especially when they are trying to worm out of something they've been caught in, and especially when they are trying to sell something repugnant and unpalatable to the people.

Bishop Fellay has to worm out of the fact that he's changed, and that the organization he runs has changed - all in anticipation of the upcoming nuptials. He worms out by saying someone else has changed, when our own eyes tell us differently. It's the old throw-the-stick-so-the-dog-will-go-away trick. That makes me very mad.

Likewise, Bishop Fellay has to sell his piece of rotted fish to Catholics who would flee from it if they knew what it was. So he wraps it in rosemary and thyme and makes sure the room is well ventilated when it is brought before the people.

Wait until they taste the "wedding feast" he has prepared for them. They will vomit without ceasing, and it will be their own fault.

+FELLAY: Why [does the pope now want to cut a deal though we haven't caved in on doctrine?] The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed.

OBSERVATION: What boggles my mind is how often this man trots out the most useless, overused, completely rebutted and vile canards, as if they were vital principles upon which empires rise.

+Fellay's arguments are beyond stale, foul, and fetid. They are ready for the glue factory. Not even a mangy dog would eat that degraded horsemeat.

So why does he use them? Because his dimple has won out with the crowds. The number of basically good folk who believe this drivel is legion. These folk want to remain in the kind of self-complacency that convinces itself that it is still militant. If +Fellay trots out a stuffed pink donkey and pulls it around the circus ring, endlessly chanting, We go to war! We go to war!, the dullards will buy popcorn, watch the show, go home, make another baby, and be ready to barbeque weenies on the weekend.

We've said it before, we'll have to say it again, even though it tires us: Rome is the principle, the SSPX is not. It is metaphysically impossible for the SSPX to "help" a Pope who is not Catholic and who will not lift a finger to Restore All Things in Christ.

I can't believe I have to write this again!!!

Maybe that's his strategy . . . wear us down.

Well, I'm tired but I'm also mad. I'm ready to fight. I'm not the older generation that doesn't want to face going through this again. I want my chance to kick Vatican II's ass. I want to go to war against Vatican II.

So, let Menzingen go ahead, and trot that pink donkey back into the ring. I'll see their donkey and raise them a white horse with a King sitting atop it. Once our King rode into Jerusalem on an ass. That event heralded His first triumphant entry into the walled city.

When He comes again we shall see this: Behold a white horse, and He that sat on him had a bow, and there was a crown given Him, and He went forth conquering that He might conquer.

+FELLAY: We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems.

OBSERVATION: Oh!!!! This one's a real beauty. This is the bearded lady attraction at the Swiss freak show. Guess what he means by secondary problems - oh yeah, Barnes and Ignoble had a sale on the Guide to +Fellayisms, so now I can translate his jive talk into our language. Those uninteresting, teeny, tiny, little nothing secondary problems are that:

a) The SSPX is reversing course and deliberately steering the Titanic straight into the iceberg;

b) The SSPX no longer follows +Marcel Lefebrvre (that's why it locked his words up in a seed vault, to which only Fr. Celier has the key). Yes, we are not allowed to read the words of ABL anymore. His works have made it to Menzingen's Index. You see, there is a real danger to our faith if we read ABL - a danger to our faith in Menzingen, that is. Thus we must now eat the Celier-germinated GMO corn of neo-Marcellianism.

c) The operating principle of the neo-SSPX is now the same as the steam engine that drives the Vatican II death train: Obedience over Faith.

But these are just secondary problems, my dear faithful. We go to Rome now to tackle the more far-reaching problems. Hey, I promise. Trust me.
+FELLAY: This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand.

OBSERVATION: Oh yes!!!!!!!!! We have a traditional Catholic network which has penetrated deep behind enemy lines. There are heroic Catholic spies placed strategically all over the world, posing as modernist bishops and prelates. They are simply awaiting our orders. Once Benedict overrides the CDF and gives us his power, I shall order these hidden troops to throw off their mask and take up arms against all the big bad men in the world. We will war for three days, after which I will bring the blood-dripping, piked heads of the ringleaders of this rebellion to the feet of the Pontiff, who will then knight me and pronounce words of gratitude over my head.

See, my dear faithful, not to worry. There are many Catholics out there just waiting for me, er, I mean the SSPX, to take up my, er, its command. We will win this war. I've been told it all beforehand.