QUOTE (Seraphim @ Oct 22 2012, 05:21 PM)
A very disappointing response from Bishop de Galerreta:

1) Absolutely no reference whatsoever to the need to resolve the doctrinal issues before discussion of a canonical normalization can begin.

2) Instead, we have the opposite: 100% fixation and commentary upon a canonical solution;

Tradfly.
He sure took his time getting to the point.
Nothing new here.

A very disappointing response from Bishop de Galerreta:

1) Absolutely no reference whatsoever to the need to resolve the doctrinal issues before discussion of a canonical normalization can begin.

2) Instead, we have the opposite: 100% fixation and commentary upon a canonical solution;

3) "Based on these extremely important and productive discussions, we have established some conditions that could allow us to envisage hypothetically a canonical normalization."

Commentary: So much for these conditions having been decided upon to prevent a solution, as some like Lane had claimed.

4) No mention whatsoever of the Bishop Williamson situation, and the illegal Chapter proceedings used to eliminate him from the discussion. Instead, de Galerreta assures us (in the face of this omission!) that the Chapter restored unity???

5) He considers the conditions decided upon as being very good, if imperfect. Apparently it never occurs to him to question why the SSPX shuold bargain for tradition on a panel with enemies; why the SSPX should be willing in its official docuмent to reduce their bishops to 1 (despite his unofficial commentary that they all know they need more); what will happen if that bishop dies? Who will select the next one? Who will decide who from the SSPX will sit on a brokering commission to fight for tradition; etc, etc.

6) In the final analysis, this confirms that Bishop de Galerreta is no longer a resistance influence, but is taking the guided tour through the regularization process.

7) It also confirms that Menzingen is fighting mightily to get a deal with Rome, and according to the words of de Galerreta, the conditions were erected to facillitate that end. It is Rome who balked, not Menzingen.

No mention of Bishop Williamson or all the priests who have ben exiled.

In the future, Bishop Galaretta, and Tissier de Mallerais will likely be removed too. Like the communists totalitarians, Bishop Fellay will continue purging anyone with a mind of their own. That is the way it works.

So +de Galarreta is now willing to place the SSPX in the hands of Modernists under certain conditions. Why?

The bishop's position has softened. Previously, with his two brother bishops, he demonstrated greater firmness:

QUOTE (Letter of the three bishops)
And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which has spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?