.
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.
.
.
I HAVE HANDED DOWN THAT WHICH I HAVE RECEIVED
.
(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffsspx.org%2Fsites%2Fsspx%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fcolorbox-big%2Fpublic%2Ftradidi.jpg&sp=e43734f3c00c0db7d9fab2312ce5a825)
.
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI
.
Question: What did ABL receive?
Answer: ABL received two things, first, he received the Catholic Faith without which no one at all is saved (cf. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Lateran IV, A.D. 1215; Athanasian Creed), and second, he received the fullness of the sacrament of Orders.
.
Question: Therefore, what did ABL hand down?
Answer: ABL handed down the Catholic Faith, and he also handed down episcopal consecration to 4 successor bishops: Bishop Richard Williamson, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallarais, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, in whom the prophesy "the last shall be first" seems to loom large, at least so far.
.
Question: Who among those 4 successors can now say they have followed in the path, set before them, of the Archbishop?
Answer: We can now say that only Bishop Richard Williamson has followed in the path of ABL, because only +W has both handed down the Catholic Faith which he received, as well as handed down the episcopal consecration that he also received.
.
Question: Is there any reason to expect that any of the other 3 SSPX bishops will rise to this status in the future?
Answer: No, there is no such reason to expect any of the other 3 SSPX bishops would achieve this status so as to be able to make this claim, i.e., TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, because not only have they not consecrated any successor bishop(s), but by their words and actions it has become clear that they have no intention of ever consecrating any new bishops in the future, since they are 100% on board with the Newrome agenda of being controlled by Newrome, and it is most manifestly Newrome's goal to eliminate the line of traditional bishops in the world in anticipation of and furtherance for the One World Religion of Antichrist, against which +W and his successors therefore stand alone on planet earth (which is not "flat" BTW).