Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada

Bishop Fellay and the his two attendants clearly just said Mass, hence the reason he and the others are dressed the way thy are.  They are dressed properly for the occasion.  

What sort of Mass? I count 13 chasubles, and at least 5 maniples. Funny thing is, it's only the other 2 bishops who aren't fully vested. This group photo makes abundantly clear, the pecking order coming out of this Chapter, in an almost symbolic way. Done properly, +Fellay also would have been flanked by his peers in the episcopate, not by his lieutenants.

Ultrarigorist indeed! Yes Tomas is correct. Bishop Fellay ordained these priests hence his vestments. The other two bishops attended the Mass but did not participate in the ceremony itself which explains the way they are dressed. If a bishop or priest for that matter is not participating in the ceremony then he does not use vestments. If you look at the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations, Bishop de Castro Mayer wore liturgical vestments because he was the co-consecrator.

Is that how you judge things? Rather than asking questions about what this could mean, you then falsely state that it "makes abundantly clear, the pecking order..." Really? I am sorry to say but if this is how you make judgments then you have a lot to learn. Think rather than making knee-jerk reactions and I am afraid that is very typical today. Suspend judgment until you can verify the facts; that is the hallmark of an educated mind.

Ultrarigorist indeed! Yes Tomas is correct. Bishop Fellay ordained these priests hence his vestments. The other two bishops attended the Mass but did not participate in the ceremony itself which explains the way they are dressed. ..

My mistake, it was posted in the context of post-Chapter stuff. I should have checked the image properties or article.

I will stand by my comment about the pecking order however; thank you very much.

Quote from: Tomas de Torquemada

Bishop Fellay and the his two attendants clearly just said Mass, hence the reason he and the others are dressed the way thy are.  They are dressed properly for the occasion.  

What sort of Mass? I count 13 chasubles, and at least 5 maniples. Funny thing is, it's only the other 2 bishops who aren't fully vested. This group photo makes abundantly clear, the pecking order coming out of this Chapter, in an almost symbolic way. Done properly, +Fellay also would have been flanked by his peers in the episcopate, not by his lieutenants.

I agree.  Also, with regards to my earlier statement, I did not mean that +Fellay actually considers himself as a Pope, but that in his purging of priests, who are dedicated to the society founded by the late +Marcel Lefebvre, the often used phrase "the iron fist of Menzingen," along with the photo, appears to reflect his attitude with regards to where his powers lie, and how far he can use them.  I apologize for any disrespect that I may have shown in the use of that statement.    

It is comments like this that make those who oppose +Fellay look stupid and irrational. I am not a supporter of +Fellay and I am aware of his dictatorial grip on the SSPX but that photo is simply a post ordinations photo and that is how the Bishops and Priests are vested for the ordinations. [/quote]

I stand corrected.  And I did assume it was a photo taken at an ordination and that they were properly vested.  So I shouldn't have agreed to the earlier comment.  But it seems to me, that at this time the question is not about clergy properly vested, or not.  It is about the use of power.  The category is "SSPX-Rome agreement."  And the topic is "SSPX to Rome--No deal."  Some of us here don't believe the deal is off the table at all.  The photo hits a bit of nerve, as +Fellay's actions have been the cause of distrust and disunity among the SSPX clergy and laity.  If indeed the agreement is made, as it most likely will, then the SSPX as we once knew it, will be no more.  And if the deal isn't made (highly unlikely), then, nonetheless, the SSPX will never be the same.        

Another pretentious bishop with funny clothes and a hat on, clearly not dressed as humbly as this next guy:

Correct.  Appearances can often be deceiving.

Why the hell would someone dislike my post?  Is a little introspection to be sure we are not being wolves in sheep's clothing (to tap into Fr. Pfieffer's sermon) a bad thing?  

I like +Williamson's eyes and smile in the photo.  Maybe you should find a different one.  

Why would I find a different one?  I think it is a delightful photo.