This communique could be interpreted as saying that Rome needs to convert. I hope that is what they mean. They should  try heal their own division with Bp Williamson, somehow.

Quote from: knish

is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

I can only guess that +Tissier and +de Galarreta must have resisted +Fellay and assistants to their face and got enough support and +Fellay backed down somewhat.  I'm not impressed with the Communique (to say the least). It is ambiguous and lacks any conviction. Totally spineless. Too little, too late!

As wallflower said, "Were they to accept a recognition tomorrow, this communique would still all be true
". And they may. I just hope the two other bishop jump ship.  

You've hit the nail on the head!!!

This is where ambiguity leads. This article is from the Vatican Insider.

http://www.lastampa.it/2016/06/29/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/traditionalist-st-pius-x-society-abandons-unification-claims-francis-spreading-errors-nSQv70JmSCuxufPP8SW0II/pagina.html


Traditionalist St. Pius X society abandons unification, claims Francis spreading errors
The group of Catholic bishops appears to have abandoned efforts to reunite with Rome. Popes have tried to repair relations over four decades. Francis had indicated a move toward unity between the wider Church and the traditionalist society with the opening of the ongoing Jubilee year of mercy last fall

29/06/2016
joshua mcelwee
rome

A traditionalist group of Catholic bishops and priests that has been separated from the wider Church for decades appears to have abandoned efforts to reunite with Rome, releasing a statement Wednesday that claims Pope Francis is encouraging the spreading of errors in Church teaching.

The Society of St. Pius X, founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 mainly in opposition to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, says now it “does not primarily seek a canonical recognition” from the Vatican for its continuing activities.

The society also says there is a “great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church” that “requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.”

The statement, released on the society’s website, seems to eliminate chances that the group might reunite with Rome. Popes have tried to repair relations over four decades.

Pope Benedict XVI made the most effort to reunite with the group, lifting the excommunications of four of their bishops in 2009. Those efforts ultimately failed when Bishop Bernard Fellay, their current superior general, rejected a doctrinal statement drafted by the Vatican for the group to sign.  

Wednesday’s statement is made in Fellay’s name and comes as the global Catholic Church is celebrating the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the founders of the Church in Rome.

Fellay says he is making the statement following a June 25-28 meeting of the society’s superiors and gives four numbered points based on the premise that the purpose of the group “is chiefly the formation of priests, the essential condition for the renewal of the Church and for the restoration of society.”

The statement ends with a paragraph that begins: “The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety.”

The society’s statement comes less than three months after Francis met with Fellay for the first time at the Vatican in April.

The Pope had earlier indicated a move toward unity between the wider Church and the traditionalist society with the opening of the ongoing Jubilee year of mercy last fall.

In a September letter to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, which is organizing the holy year on his behalf, he explained that members of the society would be granted faculties during the year to offer absolution of sins “validly and licitly” to those who approach them for confession.

In a March interview posted on the society’s website, Fellay had before said he thought Francis may consider his group as existing on the “periphery” and thus needing to be accompanied back to the Church.

Outside of the faculties granted during the Jubilee year, members of the traditionalist society are considered not to be in full communion with Rome and, in normal circuмstances, its priests and bishops cannot exercise Roman Catholic ministry.

[Joshua J. McElwee is Vatican Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.]

 This article was originally published by the Global Sisters Report, a project of NCR, and appears here with permission.  


While the new SSPX's friends at RC have their own analysis.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/rorate-analysis-sspx-communique-on.html#more

Rorate Analysis: SSPX communiqué on relations with the Holy See
Does the communiqué of the Superior-general of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), released today, really mean the end of negotiations with the Holy See? Many commentators seem to think so, including respectable ones, such as Edward Pentin.

We are going to surprise you, but that is not at all what happened. The central part in the communiqué is this:

    While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.


"...[W]ith the means that Divine Providence gives to it..." That is, the Society is ready to work (and it could not be different with any Catholic organization) with what is irresistible, the "means" given by "Divine Providence", even the most unexpected ones.

It is not a rejection or spurning of anything or anyone, but rather a realistic view of the current situation, a soothing message to concerned priests and faithful and a clear opening to whatever "means" are granted by Providence.

As all Catholics should know, Providence can bring about anything ...
 

Perhaps, my assessment was wrong.

Quote from: knish

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: knish

is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

This may be the MOST absurd statement I've ever read here!

Not only was knish an anti-sedevacantist troll from the beginning (remember that he declared his sedevacantism for less than a month to see what people would say before claiming to have "repented" of his error), it turns out he’s also an anti-Resistance troll.

Well, that was rather gratuitous.

Not really.  The definition of an internet troll:

Quote

A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

Which I literally didn't do. Yes, I've gone back and fourth on the sede question. My apologies! And yes, there is part of me that feels, maybe -- just maybe -- Bishop Fellay knows what he's doing. However, I do appreciate the very honest and polite responses to my claim. You've all made some very strong arguments.

Quote from: knish

is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?

This may be the MOST absurd statement I've ever read here!

We are in the situation we're in PRECISELY because of Bp. Fellay's WRONG actions. His poor leadership. His bad judgment.

Bp. Fellay had a mutiny on HIS watch. He lost MANY good priests.

He has lost, and CONTINUES TO LOSE, many, many faithful.

He has taken a wrecking ball to the SSPX with his poor decisions.

Now, he makes a weak - at best! - statement that may or may not hint that the deal may or may not take place, and you think to ask if the Resistance was wrong about him??

Absurd. Utterly absurd.

Excellent post. That Bp Fellay has fumbled badly in the past is an understatement.  Does anyone remember that he lost many good priests, many faithful over this very issue?  The question should be: Will Bp Fellay now apologize to the priests he booted out of the SSPX and ask them to return to fight against the novelties in Rome?    

Kind of funny-- the banner ad at the top of this page as I type is for "the last ark", and its tag line is "the anti-Christ is in the Vatican". Shows you that Google and Amazon know how to "re-brand every web page "on the fly" to suit the temperament and leanings of readers at that very moment.

And, of course, Fellay has spent thousands "re-branding " his organization so that it can be acceptable to the anti-Christs running the Vatican, the Dicasteries, the Seminaries , and the synogogues which control his fate. Indeed, Fellay has publicly stated that "Ratzinger accepts us as we are", and that Bergoglio "accepts us on the periphery ( of the Church)", and "gives us what we want."

...

And, of course, all because Fellay's ( and Schmidberger's, and Rostand's, and Loran's, and Pflugger's, etc.) pride blinded them all to think they could "sneak into" the Vatican and the, like a terrorist attack, surprise all the heretics and Christ-haters, forcing them to adopt "Tradition."

Speaking of what is kind of funny --

Funny you should talk about pride, as you refer to ordained priests, bishops, and popes by their last names like so many Privates in the military...

I understand you are a sedevacantist, but that doesn't change the fact that "Fellay" is a validly consecrated bishop. And "Rostand" is a validly ordained priest.

See the evil effect of taking in a steady diet of websites like Traditio? They call every N.O. priest a "presbyter" and call the popes by their last name (no title). Now we have hugeman here doing the same for valid SSPX priests and even a bishop!

Reason #31220 why I am not a sedevacantist.