This commentary was posted by Tradfly yesterday on IgnisArdens.  http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10880


You TLM liturgy buffs may find it interesting, but the comment that caught my eye was:  " Bishop Fellay publicly asserted on several occasions in the past that Rome would never succeed in dividing the Society bishops, since those bishops would always negotiate as a team".

The commentator source is a little sketchy, but Wessex thinks the writer(P.K.T.P.)
".... used to be Rorate Caeli's in-house expert on the geographical expansion of Latin Masses following the Motu Proprio and he often keenly speculated on the future of a regularised Society ...... without the Williamson faction! He must have undergone some conversion and fallen out with the site management over its Flirtation with the Felley Fenomenon"

__________________________________________________________________

The following is from a Summorum Pontificam oriented list, and though it only briefly addresses Rorate Caeli's "containment" role, it seemed worthy of reposing in entirety as it demonstrates how accurately the current SSPX crisis is understood from an indult viewpoint. (at least by this author)
B.U.D. applies; E&OE; blast shields up!!!!

On a related subject, I return to the question of Dr. Shaw's dangerous articles, designed by Una Voce International to deceive traditionalists and 'soften them up' for a compromised Missal. I was asked by Una Voce to be a contributor, along with Dr. Shaw. I refused because I could see that they were trying to co-opt me and then commit me to a pro-2012 Missal. That would be the best way to silence me and others like me. I'm not sure if Dr. Shaw is innocent in this or not: he may be being used or he may know what their purpose is and be co-operating in it. I don't know and cannot accuse him. I can say, however, what the real intent is here. Una Voce knows that this Pope is determined to move forward with a 'classical' Missal, meaning one that is polluted by including effluent from the Novus Ordo Missæ. That effluent will be the intrusion of sick Prefaces from the deranged and psychotic N.O.M. These will be made optional at first (we pray). I'm not sure if they will later become mandatory.

Their real purpose is to get acceptance from us for a Missal which contains some N.O. flotsam. Once we accept that, even though they be optional, the door will be open for mandatory intrusions later on, whether at the Preface or elsewhere in Holy Mass. They also want to introduce some saints into the calendar, and I fear the inclusion of some who are questionable as models of anything positive, creatures such as Escriva. I'd venerate my old shoe before I'd ask that man for any intercession.

Una Voce believes that this process of fusion is inevitable (although God has not ruled on this), and they want to prevent a rebellion over it. They don't want diocesan traditionalists to repair to S.S.P.X or independent chapels over the coming changes. In fact, they even want a reconciled S.S.P.X to accept this process of baby-stepping us to the compromised Missal. Benedict XVI calls this, and I quote him directly, "mutual enrichment". Well, that is risible. Quality and garbage cannot be mutually enriching. You don't put a good potatoe and a rotten one in the same pot and cook them together. There is not one word from the N.O. that can 'enrich' the Mass of the Ages. Not a single syllable from it. What it would cause is impoverishment of what is good and a slight improvement in what is bad.

 Dr. Shaw's job, whether he knows it or not, is to divert attention away from this coming abomination. To achieve this, he raises potential disputes which are not at issue so that, when we win on them (as we would had he never raised them), U.V.I. can claim some victories and then say that the bad things coming are more than compensated for by the good. But there is more. Rome will sneak past the bad things by doing some good things even for the 1962 form: she will restore some pre-1962 prayers and rubrics and forms to a new 2012 Missal, particularly in the Holy Week rites. The devil will do even some good that the good may be deceived.

 Longer term, this Pope and his liturgical compromisers want to combine the New Lectionary of 1970 with the Offertory and Canon of the old Mass. That is it in a nutshell, although other bad things will be included in the fusion, the new monster, such as the N.O. Prayer of General Intercession but in a more formal structure. This Pope will not have the time he needs to move very far in this process of fusion, but he wishes to begin it. Rorate Coli is committed to help the process by giving us a place to vent our frustration and argue the case. I suspect that R.C. is a public relations branch of Una Voce. Another purpose they have is to favour Bishop Fellay's compromisers over Bishop Williamson's hardliners. I rather like Bishop Williamson, especially owing to his position on the Zionists, who are the most nauseating people on this planet--and a far greater enemy to the Church than the Muslims will ever be.

 Williamson's latest remarks on the Society conflict are searingly logical. His words are like a surgical knife, cutting through all the b.s. emanating--or flowing, as b.s. might do in the metaphor--from Society moderates.

Two facts have been covered up as much as possible by the semi-trads. Using great pressure and argument, I managed to convince the moderators at R.C. to print these facts. They have agreed to do so provided that they are seldom mentioned. A refusal to mention them at all, even in a moderate and polite way, would look just a bit too suspicious.

The first is that Bishop Fellay publicly asserted on several occasions in the past that Rome would never succeed in dividing the Society bishops, since those bishops would always negotiate as a team. Then he entered into secret negotiations and cut out the other three bishops. This has resulted in the very division he swore to avoid.

Secondly, +Fellay said on several occasions that there would be no practical agreement before there was general agreement on the main doctrinal issues. The two parties sat for two years and failed to resolve even one of those issues. Then +Fellay attempted to reach an agreement on the "principles and criteria" of doctrinal interpretation--which is not the same thing as agreement on doctrine itself--and he tried to consider a canonical structure, one that would have harmed the S.S.P.X's mission very much, the hated personal prelature. Even to consider the personal prelature structure, in which the lay supporters of the Society become subjects of the local bishops and those local bishops gain a veto over the foundation of future Society apostolates--makes him a traitor to Archbishop Lefebvre.

So Bishop Fellay has turned out to be a liar and a deceiver and a traitor. Either that or circustances changed his commitments but, in that case, he OWES us an explanation. None has been forthcoming. If one considers the numbers and how those numbers have changed, esp. since 1988, we can see, in a nutshell, that the Society's future could take one of two possible courses:

 First, it could survive and perhaps even grow but at a glacially-slow rate, as an independent provider of Latin Masses, while Rome 'contains' it effectively by using her immense resources to provide more of these Masses--enough more to contain the Society but not enough more to threaten the Protestant Novus Ordo. In this scenario, the Pope would excommunicate all the Society clerics for schism.

 Second, the Society could become regularised and would be the more important part of a traditionalist movement which would grow slowly but surely but which could never threaten the Novus Disordo Conciliar Sect because it would be relatively muzzled on doctrine. Once you make a deal with Conciliar Rome, dominated, as she is, by the beliefs of such heretics as Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Murray and Reinhard Müller, you must submit to (even if not accept interiorly) the decisions of a Magisterium even when these do not rule infallibly.

 In both scenarios, the future of the Society is not bleak but it is very limited. Tradition will survive but it will not thrive. The Pope and his boys plan to use the traditionalist movement to bring the New Mass back to some minimum standard of reverence, so that the current collapse may be, well, if not averted, then at least hobbled to a gradual decline. The problem is that the New Mass and the entire accoutrement of NewChurch is vapid; it is uninspired and uninspiring. The world cannot be converted to the Truth by the New Protestant Roman Sect. Only an emphatic and emotional return to tradition, complete with expulsions at gunpoint for Pentecostal ministers in Brazil, can restore what has been lost and get us back on track.

This Pope cannot see that because he cannot shake off the detritus from Vatican II. He still loves the excited and foolish man who was a naïve Fr. Ratzinger before the Paris revolts of 1968. As Bishop W. has said so accurately: he is Catholic at heart but Modernist in mind. Like most men, he has become more conservative in his old age, whereas I am one of those very few people who was archtraditional even as a child and have never changed, so I contemn such people. I despised the liberals and the hippies and the rock noise trash when I was five years old and have despised and contemned them unwaveringly ever since. For me, that is a sure path; for the Pope, the path has been one of revision and correction, but he can only correct so far without admitting to complete error as a youth. So we can only hope that a new pope will be able to shake off these nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr shackles and see things as they really are.

 P.K.T.P.