This list can easily be translated into a set of questions for presentation to
someone who claims that:
A) +Fellay has ceased to push for a regularization, therefore we cannot
accuse him of having that agenda anymore, and he is doing no wrong because
B) The expulsion of +Williamson was a disciplinary matter only and has no
bearing on anything doctrinal;
C) There is nothing wrong with the Society achieving a 'practical agreement'
with apostate Rome.
The list above, then, can be re-written to ask such a person several questions:
1) Do you believe that the true priesthood and the true faith, outside of which
there is no salvation, can be justly subject to an apostate hierarchy, even if it is
merely a symbolic subjection?
2) Do you believe that it is a Catholic principle for the Roman Church to have one
kind of faith and practice for all the clergy and faithful in the dioceses of the world,
but also to maintain a different kind of faith and practice for a minority, a special
subgroup Roman Catholics who are spread across the globe, but unteathered from
the local diocesan bishops?
3) Do you believe that it is a Catholic principle for the SSPX to accept Rome's
formal separation of Tradition from the rest of the Church, by way of a special
canonical structure? Do you not see such a thing as a kind of indifferentism,
because it affirms implicitly the Modernist principle of a multiplicity of faiths
dependent only on the immanent spirituality and aesthetic preferences of the
persons involved, and as such, do you not see that such indifferentism should be
4) Can you not agree that an acceptance of canonical regularization with a
promised hands-off governance from Modernist Rome (e.g., a "practical
agreement") also betrays a contradictory and liberal spirit with regard to
ecclesiastical obedience? Are you unwilling to admit that such acceptance
effectively says that we would welcome the appearance of obedience (i.e., the
canonical structure) so long as we are not made to actually follow anyone's orders
and we are allowed instead to continue doing whatever we ourselves deem best,
with essentially no restrictions (i.e. the "sweetheart deal" +Fellay alluded to
5) Do you disagree that the reason to avoid a deal with Rome has nothing to do
with the deal's conditions, nor whether Rome would in fact honor their agreement?
Do you, that is, disagree that 'such a deal' (!) has everything to do with the nature
of the entity on the other side of the bargaining table? Do you not understand that
Rome has built a New Order, a new system of faith, new sacraments, a new mass,
a new priesthood to serve it, a new breed of faithful to support it, i.e., "a new
religion" (Archbishop M. Lefebvre), and that there is no proper place within that
fantasy land for the objective reality of the One True Faith, outside of which no one
can be saved (the Athanasian Creed)?
Then there is an expansion, or a 'second chapter' if you will, for there is more to
the story. To continue,
6) Did you know, that when +Fellay was confronted with the fact that he could not
get away with pulling off a 'practical deal' WITHOUT first having a doctrinal
agreement — because both clerics and laymen in the Society had recognized his
efforts for what they were, and had made mention of their knowledge in various
ways to him — that he immediately reacted to this cold, hard reality of his
audience's awareness of the thing he had hoped to 'sneak in under the radar' by
his sudden implementation of various Communist tactics, some of which not even
Joseph Stalin had ever employed (because 'Uncle Joe' was not a cleric nor a
7) Are you aware that in light of this unwelcome and unanticipated setback,
+Fellay embarked on a new plan in his pertinacious agenda, by which he would
say the following? Are you aware that he offered several talking points — in
response to this obstacle to a 'practical agreement' — regarding the ongoing
negotiations (and he has never stated that these ongoing negotiations are
terminated, therefore they continue to be ongoing)? :
~ The Holy Father wants this. We must do it because he wishes it. To resist
would be a kind of sedevacantism.
~ Rome is slowly (but surely) returning to Tradition. From the inside, the Society
may have an instrumental (perhaps glorious) role in restoring the Church.
~ Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted this deal.
~ Canonical regularization would restore an old injustice. It is ours by right to be
recognized as part of the Roman ecclesiastical structure.
~ Some in the SSPX are in danger of making the Council into a caricature: in
other words, it's not quite as bad as the naysayers have made it out to be, and
95% of it is downright acceptable.
At this point, it seems to me that once their underlying cause is known, a
development of the practical effects of these talking points is in order,
therefore, you might ask your friend the following questions:
Did you know that these talking points do not refute in any way the principled
objections to 'a practical deal without doctrinal agreement' ?
Did you know that these talking points have proven most effective in allaying
the fears of the more timid doubters?
Did you know that these talking points provide the unabashed supporters of
this new course a small arsenal of rhetoric to use here and there as
Are you aware that Rome did not even keep the 'sweetheart deal' on the table,
the deal touted initially by Menzingen?
Did you know that it was abundantly clear that if Rome HAD kept this so-called
sweetheart deal on the table, that Bishop Fellay would have been agreeable to it?
Did you know that pregnant in this reality, that Bishop Fellay would have been
agreeable to the 'sweetheart deal' that Rome had snatched away as if it had been
some kind of fish bait, is, that Bishop Fellay’s vision of the Society’s mission
includes a return, in some fashion, to the conciliar church?
Are you aware that Bishop Fellay's vision of the Society's mission includes some
fashion of a return to the conciliar church, if not at this time, then at some future
time, when Rome offers (and doesn’t withdraw) another 'sweetheart deal'?
Did you know that if we try to put this vision of +Fellay's in the best possible light,
we might thereby imagine that the Bishop sees the Society affecting the universal
Church like some kind of powerful curative medicine? Did you know that?
Are you aware of why this most optimistic view of his delusional vision is actually
less cynical, than a number of alternative explanations for such receptivity to the
offers of modernist Rome?
Did you know that there are clearly a great many Society priests and faithful who
have no trouble at all with Bishop Fellay’s vision?
Did you know why it is true, that it makes absolutely no difference whether or not
these Society priests and faithful had held such a view in the past?
Are you aware that they are quite willing to trust +Fellay's leadership, while not
being presently inspired by his talking points?
Have you been informed that there are likewise plenty of Society priests and
faithful who resist lining up like lemmings behind +Fellay and his unsupportable
and delusional vision, and that chief among them is Bishop Williamson?
Did you know that for him (+W), and for those who are drawn to him, the
Society’s mission is NOT to be the divine catalyst for the resurrection of the Catholic Church?
Did you know that these others believe the Society's mission is rather more
humbly to form good, integral Catholic priests who will keep the faith during
Rome’s absence from it, because we in fact do not know how many years it will take?
Are you aware that these others who are drawn to +Williamson, are the same
faithful and clerics who know that when Rome returns, their mission is over?
Did you know that these other clerics and faithful believe, that until that time,
Rome’s interest in absorbing the Society into its vast amalgamation of religious
experience is to be politely but firmly rebuffed?
Did you know, that these two wills are at war?
Did you know that Bishop Fellay is open to, if not desirous of, canonical
regularization without doctrinal agreement, provided that a few — three, to be
exact — practical conditions are met?
Did you know that Bishop Williamson is not in favor of any such sidestepping of
a most non-negotiable precept — that he insists on a doctrinal agreement first,
before any kind of canonical regularization can proceed?
Are you aware of the fact that this non-negotiable position of +Williamson is
absolutely identical to that of the Founder, Archbishop Lfebvre, who maintained
this ultimate precept to his dying day?
Did you know that the contrary position, that of +Fellay, is therefore diametrically
opposed to this most solemn belief of the Founder?
Did you know that each man, +Fellay and +Williamson, has supporters, and some
from each camp have suggested that the real reason for the expulsion, is Bishop
Williamson’s “holocaust” remarks of a few years ago?
Did you know, that this was probably true in some sense, or that it had been true,
at least, at the moment in time when the opposition of wills was first made public?
Are you aware that Newrome itself has made it clear that they will not allow
dissent on this particular point, entrenched as they are in the socio-political norms
of the New Order?
Did you know that the content of Bishop Williamson’s remarks cannot be the
ultimate motivator behind Bishop Fellay’s terminative action?
Are you aware that even +Fellay must have some private doubts about the
"official numbers" (+W's remarks from the ill-fated interview of 2008)?
Did you know that what +Fellay cannot abide, however, is the prospect of his
having to navigate the Society toward an eventual agreement with Newrome,
even while the Society would continue along with this most irksome,
insufferable and resolute opposition to his will in this endeavor, especially from
such a lofty chair as that of his brother bishop?
Do you now understand the reason that 'this obstacle' has now been 'removed'?
(Cf. II Thes. ii. 7)
Do you now understand the reason Bishop Williamson refutes this exclusion?
I am looking for any weaknesses in the foregoing material, and therefore I
welcome any constructive criticism before I would recommend printing out the
list in any form for use in a reasonable discussion. As in all these matters, it
is most important to be well founded in your understanding of your own
position and to be well prepared to back up any 'sweeping statements' with
supportable facts and references to publicly accessible documents, or at least
to quotations of credible witnesses of live speeches of which you can quote
the place and approximate date of their delivery. I have a friend who makes
claims to certain things having happened, and his version is in conflict with my
own, so then I am wont to ask him when such-and-such occurred, and his
response is, "Don't question me about what year this or that took place. I
don't keep track of dates very well so I can't answer your questions." My point
is, that in order to be a convincing witness, you really need to know the
approximate dates of key points in your story, for then the listener can more
readily compare your explanation to his own, and you can avail an intelligent
listener of the compelling opportunity to correct his erstwhile wrong conclusions
with a more truthful set of conclusions. Of such is the work of conversion.