I don't think Fellay's position is all that secure. I think exposing this man in a concise manner and getting the word out (the SSPX is not that large of a group) by handing out pamphlets making videos blogging etc we may be able to make him very unpopular.

I don't think Fellay's position is all that secure. I think exposing this man in a concise manner and getting the word out (the SSPX is not that large of a group) by handing out pamphlets making videos blogging etc we may be able to make him very unpopular.

A nice thought, but only a dream I'm afraid.

Bp Fellay's position is 29:9 secure, so very much secure.

The SSPX as any Catholic society is a hierarchical organisation. That's how the Church was deformed into the New-Church with the help of the visible head of it, the New-Pope(s). Same game now with SSPX. It's indeed Vatican II B, as the good Bishop wrote.

Quote from: Ethelred

Maybe Bp Tissier de Mallerais together with a few faithful priests (like Fr Pfeiffer?) will establish a new kind of priestly group or such, but also this is only vague and very difficult. Bishop Williamson seems to think he's too old and isolated to start a new Archbishop Lefebvre group...

They can do it.

Yes, they could. But I doubt they will.
It took a religious genius and a battle-tested decades-long Africa missionary like Archbishop Lefebvre to found a new congregation out of nothing, and we simply don't have such a man anymore anywhere. And our time is even much worse.
I think all three Bishops Williamson, Tissier and Galarreta are true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, but as good as they are, and as glad we're to have them, they're in no way men like the Archbishop was. And they know it. It's no shame and also it's not their "fault", it's just our time. Today we don't have such men like the Archbishop anymore and also the time isn't ripe for such a person anymore. Our time is the time of the Chastisement. Just watch the signs. We don't need to be afraid, because it's God's solution and probably the only saving of us. So I'm not giving up, on the contrary.

What they mustn't do is let Bishop Fellay be regarded as a legitimate heir to the Archbishop.

Again, nice thought but they just can't do that with a 29:9 ratio against them. Short of a miracle (which are "very, very limited" these days) it's now: Game Over for the SSPX.

Kinda pessimistic, no?

No, realistic I try to be, i.e. to see what's there and what's not. :-)

A (SSPX) father said recently to me that the collapse of the SSPX (a 29:9 collapse) could be a clear sign that the Chastisement is approaching fast now.

In a certain way all the betrayal and injustice going on in the SSPX, which has been the last large and well organised bastion against the New-Church modernism, could be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. (No loud outcry anymore against Assisi X, no loud outcry against the terrible insults of the New-Church's New-Pope against Heaven, etc)

So with this in min, I don't think we've to be pessimistic. Because nothing happens unless God wills it.

Being honest I have no desire to set foot inside an SSPX chapel ever again. A clean break is the best option.

I think all three Bishops Williamson, Tissier and Galarreta are true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, but as good as they are, and as glad we're to have them, they're in no way men like the Archbishop was. And they know it. It's no shame and also it's not their "fault", it's just our time. Today we don't have such men like the Archbishop anymore and also the time isn't ripe for such a person anymore.

I agree here. I had hoped Bishop Tissier would have stepped up but he isn't a fighter. Himself and Bishop de  Galarreta are no Bishop Williamson. I agree it's not their fault.

So I'm not giving up, on the contrary.

A realistic comment and nobody should give up but people must be realistic.

From another thread. We can't forget the letter of the three Bishops or the meeting at Albano.

Dear Gertrude the Great,

I stand by my last  ("rubbish analysis") post. If the day was saved it was no thanks to + Fellay but by the wisdom of the other two bishops who must have embolden the other members.

The General Chapter has not met for  6 years. The meeting you are referring to last October 2011 was for the Bishops and District Superiors to discuss the "doctrinal preamble" given to Bishop Fellay by Rome the previous month.

At the Albano meeting, all the bishops and priests opposed bishop Fellay with the exception of Fr. Pfluger. Bishop Fellay was ready to sign the "1989 Profession of Faith" etc. and he was stopped very quickly and ended up in agreement on +Fellay's side not to sign it.

April 7th, 2012, The three other bishops sent the letter to +Fellay and his two assistants, Fr. Pfluger and Fr. Nely opposing the deal. The letter ends:

"Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up to such an agreement, it will be with powerful destroying influences who will not keep it. If up until now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder. It was right 25 years ago. It is right still today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement."

Bishop Fellay and his two assistants respond (last paragraph):

" You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying - each one of you in his own way - to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence".
So, as you can see, there is total disagreement. Bishop Fellay continues his secret dealings with Rome and when the cat is out of the bag and his second assistant, Fr. Nely exposes him to the French district, and Rome tells him the signed docuмent would be released as promised, he backs off and states that he has to consult with the General Chapter.

Before this fiasco, + Fellay had announced that the General Chapter would not discuss the deal, it would only serve to lay down the new statues from Rome. So he thought it was a done deal. (I think everyone in this forum should know what the "new statues" entailed because it was discussed.) After the fiasco, he changed his mind and announced to Rome that he needed to consult with the General Chapter.  

Bishop Fellay could not have possibly changed his mind so quickly, even if he repents of having nearly destroyed the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, could not be trusted and all the finances and properties owned by the SSPX should be taken out of his hands and put in reliable hands.

I hope the General Chapter also notified Rome that they are damping the 1962 Indult missal and send a copy of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм and UE in shreads.

To summarise the thread though, Ethelred is most realistic and accurate. A fair summary of recent events.