.
Violent Resistance!
Curiously, this Menzingen letter attempts to imitate
Ecclesia dei afflicta in two respects:
.
1 -- It is dated the same day as Faure's Consecration, whereas
Ecclesia dei was dated the day after the Consecration of the 4.
(The timing of the two proves they were both entirely a reaction against episcopal consecrations without a Papal mandate.)
2 -- They both denounce in the strongest terms possible, the consecration(s) they protest in each case.
.
The Menzingen letter seems to be all tied up in regrettable restraints, that is, restraints it regrets being subject to, since +Fellay has no jurisdiction, and therefore, he was unable to proclaim excommunication of +W and +Faure even though he may well have wanted to. I suspect he toyed with the idea of pronouncing
latae sententiae excommunication, since that inherently means it occurs as a direct consequence of the action itself, even if no official judgment of the competent authority announces it; but then he would have deferred from that plan because it would have caused him relations difficulties with Newrome for having presumed to embezzle one of the powers reserved to the Holy See!
.
Could it be that he issued his letter of complaint the same day as the new Consecration in order to upstage any reaction from Newrome? (Recall that
EDA came out the day AFTER the 1988 consecrations.) Or, was it rather hastily published because +F just couldn't wait any longer, as he had been eagerly waiting for the chance to do this? It makes him appear to have a great desire to act as a pope, as if he covets the power that the pope has, and is trying to do whatever he can to approximate the power of a pope.
.
The irony is, ABL strove to keep his Society from having the appearance of a parallel Church, but here is +Fellay, not hesitating to act as if he craves to have papal authority -- thus giving the impression of a parallel Church!
.
+F's letter does say that this new Consecration
"is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988," but it only gives one reason to back up that claim:
.
"All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner."
.
So it attempts to reduce Menzingen's opposition to this new Consecration to the same issue of contention they had against +W and Fr. Faure -- which they say is the reason they were
"no longer members of the SSPX since 2012 and 2014 respectively," namely, +F had EXPELLED THEM because of their so-called refusal to recognize the Roman authorities (in the latter case it was literally
"because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities" -- apparently meaning +Fellay wanted to pursue "relations" and +W and Fr. Faure did not support him, therefore their
Resistance was
"violent").
.
Again, ironically, +Fellay presumes to act like a little pope by daring to punish clerics under him (but over whom he exercises no ordinary jurisdiction!) who act without his permission -- or, should we say, "mandate?"
.
In the end, this letter is a very weak attempt to show that the 1988 Consecrations and this new one of +Faure, have
nothing in common. When it is quite obvious to anyone with the faculty of thinking, that they are
very much alike. .
+Fellay attempts to reduce the objective of ABL to that of
making sacraments available to the faithful, thereby ignoring the obvious and more long-term objective, namely, the perpetuation of the Catholic Faith far into the future, which of course INCLUDES making sacraments available. In other words, +Fellay ignores the LARGER SCOPE GOAL of ABL and misrepresents his intentions as if he had only wanted one small piece of that larger scope objective, as if it were
"His sole goal ... to make available to the faithful the sacraments..." Notice too, he does not say,
valid sacraments. Obviously, that would imply that some (or all?) sacraments of Newrome could be invalid. Which would most likely put him in hot water for negotiations with Newrome. Can't have that!! Must keep up that FSSP appearance at all times!
.
In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time. His sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer.
.
Again, irony arises! If ABL's "sole goal" was supplying the faithful with sacraments, then +Williamson's goal is GREATER than ABL's! Because +W hopes to provide valid sacraments FAR INTO THE FUTURE, whereas, according to +F, ABL was only looking into the very near future, IOW +F makes ABL seem to be rather myopic in comparison to the long-term vision of his true successor.
.