Here is a better translation:


The English version from the Vatican Insider

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/9620/


QUOTE  
Towards a reconciliation between ####s and the Vatican?
Giacomo Galeazzi
Vatican City
 

The ####s haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. “We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.



If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. After the meeting of #### superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.



Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the ####s who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificuм”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the ####s. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. “Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”.

After the meeting in Albano, the ####s had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”.  

In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the ####s, Paul Morgan,  revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”. For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. A news leak to which the superior Fellay has wished to put a stop with today's communication.

The previous quote makes it look like the writer is speculating on Bishop Fellay's ability to "lead home 450 priests and 200 seminarians."

In this translation/quotation, it is Bishop Fellay himself saying this, according to the writer:

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:29 pm    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Bishop Fellah has given an interview to an Italian news reporter in response to the information provided by Fr. Paul Morgan. The news report is available on Vatican Insider but is only available in French and Spanish.

I am posting, below my comments, my English translation from the Spanish version posted on Vatican Insider. The link to the Spanish post is:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/es/homepage/vaticano/dettagliospain/articolo/9620/

In this article, for the first time as far as I have seen, Bishop Fellay is claiming that the SSPX "requests a direct revision of the Conciliar texts" and yet according to Fr. Morgan, there is nothing in the "Doctrinal Preamble" that address the need for necessary revisions in the Vatican II texts and that it "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council." I am not aware that Bishop Fellay has ever, like Archbishop Lefebvre did, insisted that elements of the Vatican II texts are "contrary to the Magisterium of the Church," that a “wholesale revision of the text” and “noteworthy revisions of docuмents” were necessary. If he is now saying that revisions are necessary, why would he want a reconciliation with modernist Rome before necessary questions of the Faith are resolved?

Fr. Morgan also said, that "all the elements which the society has always rejected" are present in the "Doctrinal Preamble" and that at the meeting at Albano, "those present were in agreement that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and the time of reaching any kind of practical agreement where doctrinal issues have not yet been resolved has not come."

If Bishop Fellay is not calling Fr. Morgan a liar, it is something very close to it. His claim that without a doctrinal resolution he can "lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests" and that, "In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome," indicates that he intends to accept, regardless of internal opposition, the "Doctrinal Preamble" and whatever structural accommodation Rome offers which includes accepting the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and the "Reform of the Reform," and the paradigm of the "hermeneutic of continuity." He apparently believes any doctrinal problems are a simple question of cosmetics.

Fr. Alains Lorans, a “spokesman for the SSPX” who knows the content of the "Doctrinal Preamble", said in a recent interview for a SSPX publication in the “Pastor’s Corner”, that “Rome knows exactly our positions, and it is with this clear knowledge that Cardinal Levada presented this doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay.” Fr. Lorans also said, “An agreement with Rome would solve the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not as important as to give back to Tradition—often scorned, or persecuted for the last forty years—its right of existence within the Church. This process already began with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм which declared that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. If, after the thorough reading which Rome wants him to have, Bishop Fellay may give his agreement, the Society will certainly be favorable to it.”

This is nothing more than an offer to be a conservative voice in a pluralistic Church. To “give back to Tradition its right to exist within the Church” sounds like a campaign slogan. It is now and has always been a matter of defending the Faith without which it is “impossible to please God.”

There is no indication that Bishop Fellay understands the implications of "1989 Profession of Faith" with its novel article requiring "submission of the mind and will" to the "authentic magisterium."

Br. Joseph



On the Road to Rome
Towards a reconciliation between Lefebvrists and the Vatican?
GIACOMO GALEAZZI
THE VATICAN CITY

The Lefebvrists have not rejected the offer of the Vatican, was the word of Bernard Fellay. The superior of the fraternityFellahint Pius X has intervened to stop the leaking of news about a possible break with the Vatican in the negotiations for the return of the schismatic group of ultra traditionalists to the Church. "We have not rejected the text which was presented to us by the Holy See," said Fellay.

If the peace process becFellahreality, the superior of the fraternity of Saint Pius X, says that he would lead back home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. And in a period of scarcity of vocations, that would not be a small thing. After the meeting of the superiors of the Lefebvrists which took place in Albano at the beginning of October there, "has come to light various comments related to the response Bishop Bernard Fellay would give to the proposals subFellah by Rome on September 14, 2011", when the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre met with the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican. To this day, nothing indicates that the Catholic ultra traditionalists will not re-enter the fold of Rome.

In the worst case, only a small part of the Lefebvrists would not accept the proposal of Rome, and only a minority party would remain outside of the return. The step that set in motion the process was the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" in which Benedict XVI demonstrated his willingness not to betray the past, especially in the liturgical field. Because the liturgy is the Church, and the way in which we pray reflects that which we believe. Bernard Fellay since 1994, is (and will remainFellahtil 2018) superior general of the society of St. Pius X. He was consecrated Bishop by Lefebvre in 1988 and was promoted in a few years to the summit of the fraternity. He saw Lefebvre die after being unconscious for a week in a coma. Fellay leads the ranks of the more modFellahthinking Lefebvrists. He is the opposite of Bishop Richard Williamson, which on the other hand, represents the most uncompromising part of the fraternity, in a word, "never again" a compromise with Rome. "Remember – the note that was disseminated today continues saying - that only the general House of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X is allowed to publish an official statement or an approved comment on this subject".

After the meeting in Albano the Lefebvrists reported that the heads would study the "doctrinal preamble" submitted by the Holy See "to submit, within a reasonable time period, a response to the Roman proposals". The content of the "preamble" is reserved. The German, Fr. Nicholas Pfluger, first assistant to Fellay, stated in a recent interview, thFellahe proposed text allows corrections on our part".

During these days, in addition, the superior of the British district of the Lefebvrists, Fr. Paul Morgan, has revealed in a news letter to his faithful some details of the meeting in the Roman Curia, where he said that Rome "does not recognize the split between the teachings of tradition and the Second Vatican Council", and the proposals of the Vatican contain "all the elements which the society has always rejected". With regard to the meeting at Albano, "those present were in agreement that the doctrinal preamble was clearly unacceptable and the time of reaching any kind of practical agreement where doctrinal issues have not yet been resolved has not come". A leak of news that the superior Fellay has remedied with today’s releaseFellah
If the liturgy is the central nucleus of the dissent of the Lefebvrists with Rome, the differences seem to have a greater force than the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificuм" can resolve on its own. The Lefebvrists request a direct revision of the Conciliar texts and not only denouncing its incorrect hermeneutics, starting with the declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" dedicated to religious freedom. In it, in the view of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the Church is placed in a state of subjection in respect to civil authority which then has to guarantee the right of freedom of expression. For the Lefebvrists, on the other hand, it would have to be the opposite: the State is subject to the Catholic faith and it should recognize it as the State religion.

Le Courrier de Tychique

Correspondence addressed to:
M. Jean Marc Chabanon
168, Route du Grobon – 01400 – Chatillon sur Chalaronne

No. 389

“The greatest disorder of the mind is to see things as one would like to see them, and not as they really are.” - Bousset, “Treatise on the love of God and oneself”

Sunday 13th November 2011
22nd Sunday after Pentecost.


Mgr. Lefebvre wanted reconciliation with Rome!

The expectation in which we are being held, concerning the response which will be given by the SSPX to apostate Rome, can but lead us to conjecture as to what it might be, with opinions seeming very diverse. Obviously we have absolutely no possibility at all of influencing the decision which Mgr. Fellay will make, and moreover we do not intend to do so. He alone will assume the responsibility for his act. But we are nevertheless left the freedom to reflect on the various arguments that are advanced from one side or the other with a view to an eventual reconciliation...

It is absolutely true that Mgr. Lefebvre wanted reconciliation. He did everything to bring it about. He met several times with Cardinal Ratzinger, and he even signed the protocol of agreement which was presented to him, before realising that it was a trap and withdrawing his signature. In the midst of this veritable haggling to which he was subjected by the Cardinal, he wrote a letter to him on 6th May 1988, which closed with these words: “In the hope that my request will not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in progress, in fraternal respect I remain Eminence, Yours, in Christo et Maria..” Perfectly clear! On 6th May 1988 he talked of a “reconciliation in progress”. He still wanted it, therefore, that much is certainly true. But not at any price...!

On 24th May he met him once again, concerning the majority of Society members in the envisaged Roman commission, and the consecration of Bishops. Rome's propositions appeared to him to be inadmissible. He telephoned us from Rome to enquire after the health of my spouse, and also to tell us that he was “in discussions with Rome”. He didn't despise the laity – he kept them informed. On 30th May the Cardinal wrote him a letter, in which he said: “At the moment of concluding, I can only say to you once again, as last Tuesday, and with the utmost gravity: when one considers the positive contents of the agreement which the benevolence of John Paul II has allowed us to arrive at, there is no proportion between the last difficulties which you have expressed and the damage which the failure to reach an agreement now would constitute, a rupture on your part with the Apostolic See, and merely for these motives. You must put your trust in the Holy See, whose generosity and understanding, recently shown towards you and to the Society, constitute the best guarantee for the future.” (Source: amdg.free.fr/mess) How little they knew of Archbishop Lefebvre's fighting spirit! With an unfailing determination, braced with immutable Catholic doctrine, and the irrefutability of his arguments, he gave not an inch of ground, and courageously assumed the rupture which had become unhealable in his eyes. On 10th June, 1988, Feast of the Sacred Heart, he warned us in a personal letter: “Dear Monsieur and Madame Barret, (...) at the moment we are witnessing the last contacts with Rome, since I must receive Cardinal Ratzinger's secretary, who is bringing me a letter signed by the pope. But for me, persuaded as I am that we cannot trust the Assisi Pope, I no longer want to pay too much attention to these threats or occasional offers which hide bad intentions. They have not changed, except for the worse. We are getting everything ready for the consecration of four candidates on 30th June. Tradition, the Church, the Catholic Faith will be able to survive amidst the ruins.” His decision had been taken!

From that point on nothing could make him reconsider his position. On 4th March 1991, in his preface to the first edition of “Notes on the Revolution in the Church” by Fr. Giulio Tam, he wrote: “The Roman authorities' adhesion to, and their diffusion of, the Masonic errors condemned repeatedly by their predecessors is a great mystery which ruins the foundations of the Catholic Faith. This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organise the defence of our Catholic Faith on our own. The fact of sitting in the seat of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of orthodoxy of the faith of those sitting there! The Pope is now ceaselessly diffusing the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy. This reading amply justifies our conduct for the support and restoration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Blessed Mother on earth as in Heaven.”

That was on 4th March, 1991. On 25th March of the same year, three weeks later, Monsignor gave up his beautiful soul to God, whom he had served so much on earth.

Let's speak the Truth!

At the heart of the Society of St. Pius X, the gnostic infiltrators – and very influential ones – never cease to justify the ralliement (compromise with the opposition) that they are calling for, by the immoderate use of some quotations from the Archbishop... selected quotations! Quotations which go in the direction of their objectives! A biased choice if indeed it is one! What shall we call the strategy which they are employing, which consists in only referring to texts which comes from the time before the adoption, by the Archbishop, of the hard line which I have just been speaking about? That is to say, those from before 1988... They cannot be unaware of those quotes which come from later on, since it is they who are trying to censor them, precisely because it would reduce their efforts to zero! Is this not a case of dishonesty pure and simple?

“To survive amidst the ruins”!

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to us that he was going to consecrate four bishops so that “Tradition, the Church, the Catholic Faith will be able to survive amidst the ruins.” In his preface to “Notes on the Revolution in the Church” he affirmed that he wished to work for “...the restoration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Blessed Mother on earth as in Heaven.” These words are the most recent, the last from his life! It is therefore incontestable that they express, in a way, his “last wishes”.

The seriously misled “Ralliement”

We know that on the 7th and 8th of last October, the superiors of the SSPX were assembled in Albano (Italy). During the course of this meeting, Mgr. Fellay presented orally the “Doctrinal Preamble” which Cardinal Levada had communicated to him on 14th September. On 27th October following from this, Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais declared in Toronto that he would not sign any agreement with Rome, after having declared that he can “consecrate whoever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and wherever he wishes, without having to demand the opinion of Benedict XVI”! This declaration contained, within itself, a refusal of the Doctrinal Preamble, which had been only been communicated to the assembled superiors by word of mouth... which robbed them of any possibility of a serious analysis. Not long after this, we learned that Mgr. de Galarreta approved these words of Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais. And then came the resounding publication of the publication of the letter from the District Superior of Great Britain, Fr. Paul Morgan, dated 1st November, in which we can read “...the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. (...) Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding.” (Site: “La crise intégriste”)

It is understandable that such a bomb had caused a panic in Menzingen which, in the hours that followed, issued a brief statement claiming total and exclusive control of all information concerning this episode! This is where we are at!

It is clear that Mgr. Fellay has been disowned, if not discredited. This dramatic episode, if it has the merit of reassuring all those who feared a surreptitiously prepared compromise with Rome (“ralliement”), will not be without consequence. Will Mgr. Fellay override the expressed majority wishes of those at the heart of the Society and will he sign the insidious Preamble, in spite of everything...? Nothing allows us to say so, at the moment...! But if the internal turmoil continues, it will be suicidal...!

It still remains that this episode only confirms our premonitions concerning the preparation of minds, by the clique of gnostic, infiltrator clerics, to a supposedly “essential” agreement, and curiously one supported by a hierarchy often contemptuous and aggressive towards those who cried wolf!

In this explosive text, Max Barret makes reference to a "gnostic infiltration" of SSPX.

Common sense directs me to warn Ignis members before anyone begins to comment about this particular reference that the Moderators will undoubtedly maintain an extremely hard-line in regard to this subject, and I strongly suspect that anyone who attempts to link to malicious and calumnious disinformation sites such as Virgo Maria or Traditio, or who pursue speculation, will be immediately banned.

There is a certain truth to what Max Barret affirms in this regard, but the subject is not one that is open to the speculation of those who do not know the confirmed history and undeniable facts of the case, without great danger of spreading serious calumny.

If anyone wishes me to present a very brief factual history of what is known and undeniable, I will be pleased to do so.

Quote from: pbax

Quote from: Diego

Can you elaborate regarding these new businesses?

 
I can but it will take time. It happened when Maxy Krah came on the scene back in 2009. Below is a quote from an Eddie D in 2009.

(Quote)January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.

The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”

In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?

The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.

As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. (unquote)

He is also on the board of other companies belonging to SSPX

   Interesting:

1) Who appointed Krah as a delegate to the Board?

2) Why him?

3) What primary purpose does he serve there?

4) What other roles does he play within the SSPX drama (e.g., I remember reading that he was sent to England to heckle Bishop Williamson, and it is not clear to me how such a role could be related to his position as delegate to the Board)?

5) You mentioned when the company was formed, there was a small issuance of stock/shares: So this is a public company?  If so, could I buy all the shares and exercise a controlling influence on the finances of the SSPX?