The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has denounced Vatican II, described the post-conciliar liturgy as “evil,” and said that he is grateful the group never reached an accommodation with the Holy See.

In a provocative address to the Kansas City audience, Bishop Bernard Fellay said: “It is has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate.’” He said that although the Novus Ordo Mass introduced after Vatican II may be valid, “The New Mass is bad, it is evil.”

Bishop Fellay told SSPX supporters that talks with the Vatican, designed to regularize the status of the breakaway traditionalist group, collapsed last June because the Vatican insisted on acceptance of the teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX leader flatly rejected the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI that Vatican II statements should be read in the light of consistent Catholic teaching. “The Council is not in continuity with tradition,” he said. “It’s not.”

While the SSPX leader said that the “hermeutic of continuity” preached by Benedict XVI was unrealistic, he acknowledged that the former Pontiff was somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of traditionalists. Under Pope Francis, he said, the gap between the SSPX and the Holy See is widening.

“When we see what is happening now,” Bishop Fellay said, “we thank God—we thank God!—we have been preserved from any kind of agreement” with the Vatican.

The harsh words from the SSPX leader appear to signal an end to any realistic hope for a reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the Holy See, and an indefinite continuation of the schism that began in 1988 when the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained Fellay and three other bishops in defiance of orders from Pope John Paul II.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19372

It looks like Bishop Fellay is a Resistance bishop.

Just a confirmation that the resistance haven't a leg to stand on.
But I will not be expecting any humble retractions any time soon.

It is actually a confirmation of Bishop Fellay's dual mindedness and  his familiar shifting of responsibility.  If anything, he confirms that their fears were entirely justified.

And it is indeed true that there will be neither humility nor apology coming  from Menzingen.

No the position of the resistance is a position that the Archbishop always rejected.

Many tried to force him into that false position, but he always rejected it.

'Some pamphlets written against me are doing the rounds. I am a traitor and a Pilate because I discuss with Rome and say to the Pope: Let us follow Tradition. I do not think I have yet delivered you up; the only aim of my approaches to Rome is to attempt to break down this iron curtain which hems us in and to ensure that thousands of souls are saved through having the grace of the true Mass, the true sacraments, the true catechism, and the true bible. That is why I go to Rome and why I do not hesitate to go every time they ask me.  . . I want to preserve an atmosphere that will make relations easy; I can never be accused of having been insolent towards the Holy Father. How must we act with regard to the people in those positions? Should we carry on our resistance by locking ourselves away in an ivory tower? Or should we try to win over the Roman authorities? I have decided not to break off dialogue with Rome. .. . Let us be clear that if a bishops breaks with Rome, it will not be Me!' - Archbishop Lefebvre.