Cassini posted:

"It is with great reluctance that I enter where angels fear to tread. I cannot think of any subject matter more likely to lose friends than this one. Already in my tiny chapel life-long friends are divided and a feather could tilt the balance. If ever the devil had found a way to divide and conquer this is the most unbelievable example. The reason being that one should not offer opinions based on second, third and fifty-hand information. Now while these opinions may be correct based on the information given, what if the information given was inaccurate or taken out of context by the sheer disbelief at the thought of the SSPX 'modernising.'

Today however, I can speak on the matter and I will. The reason why I can is because yesterday I was with a small group of SSPXers in a room for three hours with Bishop Fellay. I am not breaking any confidence because one man was openly recording the talk but ran out of space with an hour to go. The group was asked if they had any questions which were recorded and given to the bishop to answer after his talk. Needless to say the talk was about the crisis that has befallen the SSPX based on the possible reconciliation with Rome, as the papers put it.

What you are about to read is a summary of an account that contained names, positions, dates etc that I could not be expected to remember.

The 'problem' arose from the fact that Rome sent Bishop Fellay, as elected head of the SSPX, an offer of reconciliation. As was his duty, Bishop Fellay's SSPX had to reply asking what Rome had in mind. Now note the SSPX were not the ones knocking on Rome's doors looking to get back in an a compromise, but Rome instigating a reconcilliation.

There began an exchange of docuмents and statements that amounted to the following conditions held by the SSPX. The SSPX cannot, would not agree to anything that Archbishop Lefevbre had founded the Society of priests on. The following in particular: no recognition of Vatican II as an infallible council. The SSPX would acknowledge those parts that were traditional in the council, would accept wording that had a traditional interpretation, and finally, would never accept the parts like ecuмenism and religious liberty as presented in the Docuмents.

On the Mass, Bishop Fellay said that the Society would continue to accept its validity, but that it was EVIL. When questioned on this by different Cardinals, Bishop Fellay said it was based on the following criterion:
It was valid in the same way as a BLACK Mass is Valid, that is, the sacrifice is made and the host consecrated. It was EVIL in a strict sense. Evil means lacking good, completely or in part. The 'not good' parts are the loss or rubrics and prayers from the Tridentine Mass. Rubricks for example, were not developed for nothing, every move and garment had a purpose for good. For example, the priest after touching the host clasped both tumb and first index finger to prevent any crumb of the sacred host from falling to the ground. Another was the genuflections, gestures of adoration, etc etc. These 'goods' were removed from the Mass thus making the NO EVIL.

As one could imagine, the two sides were at odds. But then things got very complicated and confusing. Bishop Fellay, the SSPX, began to get messages claiming to speak for Pope Benedict. It reached a stage where Bishop Fellay was offered the following agreement by WORD OF MOUTH. Ok, we will allow you to retain your stand on Vatican II, you can retain your view on the NO mass, you will be granted more freedom for your churches and freedom to expand.

In the meanwhile the German Bishops, who HATE the Society, began their trouble making. Bishop Fellay, who has personal contacts in Rome was told that the curia were ignoring the wishes of the Pope in this matter. He gave one example of an order by the pope allowing a monk set up a chapel with Latin Mass. Six months later the monk asked for a reply to his request. The pope said he granted it six months ago. It seems the Cardinal simply put the concession in a drawer and left it there.

Throughout, Bishop Fellay said it required the upmost confidentiallity in these negotiations mainly because he did not know who was in charge of Rome. His hopes were kepy alive by the Pope's verbal wishes and promises, and then squashed by the curia. It went from one to the other. Meanwhile the rumours went flying about. True, to some people it looked like Bishop Fellay was negotiating concessions month after month, but the fact was that he did not want to end negotiations while the Pope was on the verge of granting what the Society wanted, everything Archbishop Lefevbre stood for. But there was nothing Bishop Fellay could do about it. He was caught in a dilemma. Arguments resulted and each side acted as they thought was in the interest of tradition and the SSPX.

Within weeks however, IN WRITING Rome, that is the congregation dealing with the SSPX gave an absolute NO to the SSPX's demands. Bishop Fellay did not know who to believe. One thought Rome was led by the pope as boss, but it seems there was a two-powered Rome throughout the invitation to the SSPX. They demanded the SSPX accept the deal THEY offered, No criticism of infallible Vatican II, no criticism of NO etc., or face EXCOMMUNICATION again. Bishop Fellay told them go ahead excommunicate them again, for as far as the world was informed by the Catholic press and Cardinals they were ALREADY seen as excommunicated.

Then the Pope resigned. Bishop Fellay sent back the demands of Curia Rome saying NO WAY. But said Bishop Fellay, everytime I sent back a NO WAY to Rome, they replied by asking again for the SSPX to comply. After Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the NO WAY written answer from the SSPX was responded to in this way, 'let us wait and see what the new pope might say about the situation. That way ROME is keeping the confrontation alive.

On the new Pope, Bishop Fellay said that he can only watch as things develop. He too is puzzled at the lack of respect for the office by the gestures of 'Bishop of Rome,' living in the hotel, etc. He also said in Argentina there was mixed signs. The new pope was hard on 'conservatives.' But when asked by the SSPX to co-operate in a political way to accommodate the SSPX visit Argentina to say mass etc, he did so willingly.

A questioner asked about Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay said that was a personal matter. He said it was heartbreaking to see the family broken up. It was obvious the break has saddened Bishop Fellay and it probably has with Bishop williamson. Finally Bishop Fellay said he is being quoted as saying many things he never said. There, he said, is the danger of the internet, now the world are told things that are not true.

So there you have it friends. I shall leave it at that and hope the Holy Ghost assists each one of you to find peace and hope in this candid talk. Be rest assured there will be NO DEAL with Modernism, no compromise, that you have the Bishop's word on, 'so help me God' as he said to us