He is obviously referring to the communique released by the SSPX today. There is already a thread about it, so I direct everyone to that thread. I will be closing this thread, after I post my response to the communique:
Here is the main thread for this topic:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Communiqu-after-meeting-of-all-Superiors1. If he had been on truth serum, he would have added, "In the meantime, we'll keep teaching Canon Law in English (instead of Latin) and constantly cross-referencing the New 1983 Code. And we certainly won't do anything "extreme" and continue to do our best to maintain a good brand image with the public. And I still thank God we expelled +Williamson, since he is controversial and being associated with him would prevent a future deal with Rome."
2. Recall that Bishop Fellay is first and foremost a politician. That includes making awesome campaign promises, and keeping his constituents happy. If he didn't say things that sounded great once in a while, he would not be a successful politician. Politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth.
3. Am I the only one that feels deja-vu with this communique? He has released "completely Trad sounding" docuмents like this several times over the past 4 years, each of which made it sounds like he was giving up on a practical accord with Rome, and that the Resistance might as well pack it in (more on this later, read on). But it's never over, unfortunately. As much as we'd like this nightmare to be over so we can all go back to our old SSPX chapels with nothing different from, say, 1995. But the quest for a Practical Accord continues, and that is the important part.
4. Why did they release this communique? Well, it should be obvious once you read a quote from Knish, "is there any part of you that feels maybe -- just maybe -- the resistance was wrong about Bishop Fellay?" and a quote on Facebook, which called this communique "a death blow to the resisters". That is precisely what we're all meant to think here. The strong minded and well-informed know better. But as for the busy, the superficial, the ignorant, and the poorly informed, they might just take the bait -- hook, line and sinker.
5. Perhaps too much backlash has arisen in Rome (or with the current Pope) to complete a Deal, and so +Fellay wants to get as much mileage out of "giving up for now" as possible. He'll turn this into a dramatic, political move of one big step taken backwards, with all the cameras rolling, so he can squeeze every bit of political juice he can out of the situation. Moreover, this is typical Bishop Fellay behavior: one step backwards, then two steps forward. He makes sure everyone pays attention to those steps backwards, while keeping the steps forward as obscure and shrouded in secrecy as possible. This gives the average Catholic in the pews the impression that he's swimming in pure Tradition.
6. Related to #3, we have to remember that the neo-SSPX continues as the neo-SSPX. They still keep a low profile, they still keep things "positive", they still do many things differently than the old SSPX. They still stand in horror at the prospect of a Bishop consecrating new Bishops for Tradition without papal approval (Does that sound like followers of +Lefebvre to you?). That is a fact. That is how the SSPX reacted to the consecrations of +Faure and +Thomas Aquinas.
7. Of course the SSPX likes Tradition (Truth) somewhat, whenever they get a chance. Remember the FSSP likes Tradition as well. But their FIRST love is Numbers. As I've said before, you can't primarily love Truth and Numbers. Either you put Truth first which will cost you some Numbers on occasion, or Numbers first which costs you some Truth on occasion. You can try to love both, but you can't give FIRST PRIORITY to both.
8. Some excerpts from this communique seem to be giving up on a deal with Rome, mentioning the current Pope in particular. But how long will Pope Francis be Pope? Especially in the current order, where papal resignations are a distinct possibility. Hasn't Pope Francis explicitly stated that resignation is an option for him? These recent post-Vatican II popes don't consider death to be the only way to set aside the Papacy. And haven't there been rumors that Pope Francis will resign in the not too distant future?
9. Also recall that this meeting was *seriously* leaked. Everyone knew about it, even the exact dates and location for the meeting. So Bishop Fellay knew everyone was watching and wondering what was going on. The Resistance drew everyone's attention to this meeting, what else was he going to do? Saying nothing wouldn't be an option, then it makes the Resistance score points, "See? They're acting like Bilderburgers having a secret meeting." Instead, +Fellay is cleverly trying to exploit all the attention cast on him, to make another ostentatious obeisance/homage to Tradition, and make the Resistance look BAD. What a politician.
10. Since this communique didn't mention anything substantial suggesting a move backwards towards Tradition, for example no apology was made to Bishop Williamson, I can safely say the Crisis in the SSPX continues, as does the need for the Resistance.
Topic: Sspx meeting (Read 823 times)