Posted by Conterrevolutionary on Ignis Ardens

The seminarists in Morgon and De Avrillé will be ordained by Bishop de Galarreta

Un évêque s'est levé informes that the Capuchins and Dominicans who were not ordained due to the sanction imposed by Bishop Fellay, will be ordained on October 11th by Bishop de Galarreta.

My friends, we are seeing a change in Menzingen's tactic, This story, although is good, keeps us worried, since many faithful who started to realize the problems in the Society, will return to their comfort zone.

Father Girouard, from Canada, who spoke load against the agreement, has been told by his superior that "is not in trouble", that he remains in good situation with the Society.

Like I said, this seems to be a change in the tactic. Be aware!

Seen here

From IA: Ordinations scheduled

There is no deal, no prospect of a deal, and no effort being made towards one.  It's over.  As Fr. Morgan said after the GC, the position is no agreement without doctrinal correction.

I contacted Bishop Fellay today and asked him what the status of relations with the Dominicans and Franciscans now was, and he told me, "I have given directly and personally to both the Capuchins and the Domincans the permission for the ordinations, as well as the date, the place and the bishop who will perform the ordinations."

And he added, "in my eyes the relations are back to normal, hence the permission to ordain."

I hope this helps.  It's certainly good and positive news, for all concerned.

reply by D.O.

Dear John Lane,

"There's a fifth possibility, which happens to be the truth".

There is a sixth possibility, which happens to be a far deeper and more profound truth.

"I contacted Bishop Fellay today and asked him what the status of relations with the Dominicans and Franciscans now was, and he told me, "I have given directly and personally to both the Capuchins and the Domincans the permission for the ordinations, as well as the date, the place and the bishop who will perform the ordinations."

And he added, "in my eyes the relations are back to normal, hence the permission to ordain."

Bishop Fellay is not, in any way, shape, or form, superior to the Dominicans, Benedictines or Franciscans. They do not need his permission to ordain their candidates, nor do they seek it.

Certainly two, quite probably all three, of the resisting bishops approached the gravely insulted religious orders with offer of ordination after the scandalous refusal of their ordinands mere days before the previously arranged event at Ecône.

Bishop Fellay no longer holds the religious orders to ransom over the issue of ordinations. That heavy stick that has been wielded for years, that a mere two months ago you were extremely concerned and apparently scandalized about, is well and truly broken and has been shoved in an appropriate place where it will not see daylight again.

That is truly "good and positive news, for all concerned".

Quote

Well, both could be true, D.O.

The politics of the situation may well have shifted relations somewhat, and permanently. But if Bishop Fellay is now happy with them, when he was not before, that's good. Men do not need to agree on everything in order to have peace and unity.

He gave his permission for the ordinations to proceed. That's fact. If others think he only did this because he had no real choice, that's their judgement.

Do you accept Fr. Morgan's characterisation of the GC Statement that it returns the SSPX to the position, no reconciliation without doctrinal correction?

If so (and the vote was 40-0), then the danger has passed. If the danger has passed, then the cause of disunity is gone, and that explains the unanimity at the General Chapter and the permission for the ordinations, as well as much else.

I wouldn't say Bp. Fellay is now happy with them.  However, it seems that Bp. Fellay couldn't do anything to stop Bp. de Galarreta ordaining those seminarists and then he just did as the king in Le Petit Prince.

Regarding Fr. Morgan's letter, it is just rubbish: no reconciliation without doctrinal correction?  Please, give me a break.  What about the six conditions?  None of them is about rome returning to the true doctrine.

A 40-0 vote means nothing, if the same person appointed most of those 40 and excluded those who could vote against.

The danger has past?  What danger?  The danger of reaching an agreement with the antichrist rome?  No, it hasn't past and it won't until the superior general understands that there are two romes, that BXVI is a complete modernist, that rome has to return to the true doctrine before thinking about a deal.

The cause of disunity is gone?  Are you kidding?  After telling so many lies, who is going to believe Bp. Fellay?  It is easy to see that the spirit of contradiction is still in charge inside the SSPX: "no reconciliation without doctrinal correction" and then they come up with six conditions, none of them stating the necessity of rome's return to the true doctrine...

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote

Well, both could be true, D.O.

The politics of the situation may well have shifted relations somewhat, and permanently. But if Bishop Fellay is now happy with them, when he was not before, that's good. Men do not need to agree on everything in order to have peace and unity.

He gave his permission for the ordinations to proceed. That's fact. If others think he only did this because he had no real choice, that's their judgement.

Do you accept Fr. Morgan's characterisation of the GC Statement that it returns the SSPX to the position, no reconciliation without doctrinal correction?

If so (and the vote was 40-0), then the danger has passed. If the danger has passed, then the cause of disunity is gone, and that explains the unanimity at the General Chapter and the permission for the ordinations, as well as much else.

I wouldn't say Bp. Fellay is now happy with them.  However, it seems that Bp. Fellay couldn't do anything to stop Bp. de Galarreta ordaining those seminarists and then he just did as the king in Le Petit Prince.

Regarding Fr. Morgan's letter, it is just rubbish: no reconciliation without doctrinal correction?  Please, give me a break.  What about the six conditions?  None of them is about rome returning to the true doctrine.

A 40-0 vote means nothing, if the same person appointed most of those 40 and excluded those who could vote against.

The danger has past?  What danger?  The danger of reaching an agreement with the antichrist rome?  No, it hasn't past and it won't until the superior general understands that there are two romes, that BXVI is a complete modernist, that rome has to return to the true doctrine before thinking about a deal.

The cause of disunity is gone?  Are you kidding?  After telling so many lies, who is going to believe Bp. Fellay?  It is easy to see that the spirit of contradiction is still in charge inside the SSPX: "no reconciliation without doctrinal correction" and then they come up with six conditions, none of them stating the necessity of rome's return to the true doctrine...

Or my personal favorite:

Spring 2012 Angelus article: "Silence in the Face of Apostasy."

Summer 2012 Bishop Fellay statement:

"Doctrinal Mutism is not the Answer to the Silent Apostasy."

It is easy to see that the spirit of contradiction is still in charge inside the SSPX: "no reconciliation without doctrinal correction" and then they come up with six conditions, none of them stating the necessity of rome's return to the true doctrine...

There are men with different views in the Fraternity.  Always have been.  Unity has persisted despite that.

The thing you seem to be missing is the "seventh" condition - in the General Chapter statement.  Bishop Fellay agreed that any potential agreement will be decided by the General Chapter, not by him alone.  Having secured that, the General Chapter secured everything.