"Two Wills" by Binx from Ignis Ardens.


The expulsion of Bishop Williamson by Bishop Fellay may be traced to a clash of wills. The cited disobedience (by both men) is nothing more than the manifestation of that clash. But to what are the two wills attached?

The answer to that question leads ultimately, I think, to two different visions of the Society’s mission in the world and in the Church. And the most recent manifestation of that difference finds expression in the rhetoric surrounding the negotiations with Rome.

Bishop Fellay claims that he did not seek an alliance with Rome but that Rome rather was the initiator. We must take him at his word, as we cannot read his secret desires nor any secret actions they may have inspired. What we can observe, however, is what he openly defends: a general receptivity to the Pope’s desire for a canonical regularization of the SSPX. Indeed, we have heard countless times from Bishop Fellay or from one of his appointees the argument that goes thus: if the Pope desires to recognize us and we are allowed to keep doing what we have always done, how can we resist? Or to put it another way, if we get offered the sweetheart of all traditionalist deals, we would be fools not to take it.

In response to this logic, those opposing Bishop Fellay (including Bishop Williamson at times) have often made what I would call a miscalculated counter-attack by arguing that Rome is not to be trusted. “Look at all the other traditionalist groups,” they say. “Look what happens to their so-called deals after they submit themselves to Roman authority.” True enough. Rome is not to be trusted, and that is worth noting in itself. But this approach to the argument glosses over a bigger problem because it implies that if somehow Rome could be made to hold up its end of the bargain, the sweetheart of all deals should indeed be accepted. But this is not so.

While it is likely true that Rome would renege on any deal (let alone one that would allow the SSPX to openly criticize the Council), this is not the primary reason to avoid such an arrangement. In fact, even if Rome were to muster up enough gentlemanly spirit to stick to its negotiated concessions—even then, a canonical regularization would be fundamentally uncatholic for several reasons:
1.   The true priesthood and the true faith should not be subjugated—symbolically or otherwise—to an apostate hierarchy.

2.   It is not Catholic for the Roman Church to have one kind of faith and practice for all the clergy and all the faithful in all the dioceses of the world, and a different kind of faith and practice for a special subgroup of Roman Catholics, spread also across the globe but untethered, as is their want, from the local diocesan bishops.

3.   Likewise, it is not Catholic for the Society to accept Rome’s formal separation (by way of a special canonical structure) of tradition from the rest of the Church. Such indifferentism must always be resisted 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.

4.   Acceptance of canonical regularization with hands-off governance from modernist Rome also betrays a contradictory and liberal spirit with regard to ecclesiastical obedience. It says, in effect, 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 are allowed instead to continue doing whatever we ourselves deem best, with essentially no restrictions (i.e. the sweetheart deal).
In short, the reason to avoid a deal with Rome has nothing to do with the deal’s conditions nor whether Rome would honor them. It has everything to do with the nature of the entity on the other side of the bargaining table. Rome has built a New Order, a new system of faith and mass and sacrament. There is no proper place within that fantasy land for the real reality.

Of course, Bishop Fellay, being an excellent judge of his audiences, had to have been aware that some in his society, among both clerics and laymen, would instinctively detect and resist this idea of a practical deal without doctrinal agreement. And even if he did not know beforehand, he knew soon enough by way of Internet fora that this was the case.

In response, he offered several talking points with regard to the ongoing negotiations: 1) The Holy Father wants this. We must do it because he wishes it. To resist would be a kind of practical sedevacantism. 2) Rome is slowly (but surely) returning to tradition. From the inside, the Society may have an instrumental (maybe even glorious!) role in restoring the Church. 3) Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted this deal. 4) Canonical regularization would restore an old injustice. It is ours by right to be recognized as part of the Roman ecclesiastical structure. And 5) 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.

These talking points do not, of course, refute in any way the principled objections to a practical deal without doctrinal agreement, but they certainly are effective in allaying the fears of the more timid doubters, and they provide the unabashed supporters of this new course a small arsenal of rhetoric to use here and there as circuмstances warrant.

In the end, as we know, Rome did not even keep on the table the sweetheart deal touted initially by Menzingen, but it was abundantly clear that if they had done so, Bishop Fellay would have been agreeable. Pregnant in this reality is that Bishop Fellay’s vision of the Society’s mission includes a return, in some fashion, to the conciliar church. If not at this time, then at some future time, when Rome offers (and doesn’t withdraw) another sweetheart deal. Trying to put this vision in the best light, we might imagine that the bishop sees the Society affecting the universal Church like some kind of powerful curative medicine. Delusional though such a vision may be, it is less cynical, at least, than a number of alternative explanations for such receptivity to the offers of modernist Rome.

There are clearly a great many Society priests and faithful who have no trouble at all with Bishop Fellay’s vision. Whether they held such a view in the past matters not. They are quite willing to trust his leadership (and be inspired by his talking points) in the present. But there are plenty who resist as well, and chief among them is Bishop Williamson. For him, 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 but rather more humbly to form good, integral Catholic priests who will keep the faith during Rome’s absence from it. When Rome returns, the mission is over. Until that time, Rome’s interest in absorbing the Society into its vast amalgamation of religious experience is to be politely but firmly rebuffed.

So these two wills are at war. 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. And Bishop Williamson is not. Each man has supporters, and some from each camp have suggested that the real reason for the expulsion is Bishop Williamson’s “h0Ɩ0cαųst” remarks of a few years ago. In some sense, this is probably true. That was, at least, the moment in time when the opposition of wills was first made public. And 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. Still, I have a hard time believing that the content of Bishop Williamson’s remarks is the source of Bishop Fellay’s terminative action. I cannot read his mind, but I suspect that even he has some private doubts about the official numbers. What he cannot abide, however, if he is to navigate the Society to an eventual agreement with Newrome, is the resolute opposition to his will in that endeavor, especially from such a lofty chair as that of a brother bishop. This obstacle has now been removed.

Very interesting!

I hope this isn't a sign that topics are going to begin looking the way topics look on Angelqueen (or used to look on Angelqueen back when I pretty much stopped even going there).  

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
of it;  

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
resisted?

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
previously)?

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
religious superior)?

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
circuмstances warrant?

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 “h0Ɩ0cαųst” 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 docuмents, 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.

Additionally, there seems to be a weakness following item #4 at the top, as follows:

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
previously)?

It would seem this presents an opportunity to press the
observation that +Fellay expects everyone on planet earth to
abide by something AFTER canonical recognition that he
absolutely has shown he cannot abide by BEFORE canonical
recognition, as follows:


Did you know that Bishop Fellay has been most outspokenly critical of Bishop
Williamson, accusing him of "formal, obstinate and pertinacious disobedience"
because he has not shut down Eleison Comments forthwith, after +Fellay's own
haughty and objectively unjustified demand that he do so, as of two or three
years ago?  Did you know that you can read about this fact on the first page of
+Williamson's OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY ON AN "EXCLUSION," dated
October 19, 2012, London? And by extension, are you unaware therefore, that
when +Fellay expects to be 'fine' with having to abide by the appearance of
obedience under a canonical structure with NewRome — so long as we are not
made to actually follow anyone's orders, and we would then be allowed to
continue doing whatever we ourselves deem best with essentially no
restrictions — that we would then be acting exactly as +Williamson has
heretofore been acting, and that this has been something with which +Fellay
has specifically announced that he is absolutely and unequivocally at WAR, to
such a degree that he has deemed it has been the sole grounds to expel his
brother bishop from the Society?

Do you not see that +Fellay therefore proposes to UNITE the Society with
apostate NewRome under the pretext of the exact same thing that he has
just now used as an excuse to DIVIDE Bishop Williamson from the same
Society? (Cf. Matt. xii. 26)



It seems to me that his most glaring inconsistency in this matter sheds an
enormously bright light on his most telling lack of principles and shoddy
capacity for leadership of the Society.  

This hypocrisy reeks of a most odious and sinister corruption.  

Do as I propose for the future, regardless of what I have denounced in the
past?  



I don't think so.   :nunchaku:



It's time for +Fellay to "throw in the towel" as we say in these here parts.

Irreverent...

Way to make distract from the credibility of this movement. Please stop with the stupid videos and picture.