SSPX Internal Document: "Cor Unum" June 2017

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement' started by Machabees, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Once again the ralliement of Bishop Fellay towards modern rome and punishment for any dissenters in the ranks rings loud and clear.

    Below is the contents written in June 2017 by Bishop Fellay to all of the 600 sspx priests in every country, to every priest friends, and every friendly communities tied to Menzingen. In no uncertain terms, says Bishop Fellay, no priest or bishop will dissent or contradict the superior General; no priest or bishop will announce or pronounce on their own without permission any relation of the sspx and rome on-goings. It is forbidden with pain of expulsion...do not cross or contradict the superior.

    Tough talk. But when priests are buffered when asking simple questions following the proper channels and are cast as reprobates...the water boils.

    Too bad Bishop Fellay wasn't on the right side of the debate. He spends more combative energy attacking his brother priests and bishops to be silent than he does against the modernists.

    There is a lot to flush out; ending the same, betrayal.

    [I have made some slight editing in the French translation and highlighting with comments in blue.]

    Mind you, we are in October 2017 and Bishop Fellay has been making some bolder moves with the Vatican over these last three months..to the shackles and silence of his priests.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    June Cor Unum 2017

    A Word from the Superior General

    Dear members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X,

    A few troubles have broken out in our dear Fraternity in recent months. Some members felt that they had to take a position publicly to express their point of view, using the pulpit or their bulletins for that purpose. In this they have acted in disregard of the elementary rules of every organized society, and also of our internal statutes and rules which require that relations with Rome be reserved for the Superior General. This is a provision of our venerated founder. Any article on this subject must therefore receive the approval of the Superior General, after being presented to the judgment of the Superior of the district.

    We therefore condemn these untimely initiatives, the most serious of which have been sanctioned. Is it necessary to recall that the General Chapter of 2006 included among the grounds for dismissal of the Brotherhood the rebellion and the public dissemination of a dispute with the authority? Let this warning be taken seriously .

    As always, these confreres imagine they are defending Tradition. But in fact, the means they use weaken it by seriously attacking the unity of our fraternity, sowing weeds and causing confusion among the members and the faithful. Moreover, they pretend to dictate to the authority what should be its conduct. Whatever the good intention or the quality of the arguments, it is impossible to use an evil and unlawful means without causing damage to the common good. [Here Bishop Fellay just condemned the entire (rebellious) work of Archbishop Lefebvre and fight within Tradition.]

    Once again, we take this opportunity to recall the nature of our relations with Rome, since that is what it is all about.

    1. The Church is experiencing one of the most terrible crises in its history, both in its intensity and in the extent of the errors spread at all levels of the hierarchy and the Catholic universe. This internal crisis began well before the Second Vatican Council; it goes back at least to the pontificate of Leo XIII and was strongly denounced by Saint Pius X under the name of modernism . It is experiencing a dazzling development on the occasion of the last Council which introduced a number of new principles and " pastoral " attitudes in order to open up to the world. The latter was able to diffuse its spirit in the favor of compliant texts which were matured. If today voices are heard to deplore a false reception of the Council, speaking of a para-council, a council of the media, we must note that the door open to these errors, called false interpretations, is found in the texts and the very atmosphere of the Council. If it is difficult to define exactly " the spirit of the Council ", it is in his name that the Church has been seriously wounded a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis ...

    2. Faced with this terrible reality, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted by taking the means that had to be used to get out of it. He was able to form priests, while rejecting the new orientations, faithful to all the truths and all that had been transmitted by our Mother the Holy Church; [Isn't this the irony to the aforementioned troubles broken out in the sspx-civil war Bishop Fellay directs this stern letter to be the final word - the Emperor has spoken?]

    3. That's what saved us! Moreover, it is this firmness which has allowed us to develop and manifest to the world and to the Church that attachment to Tradition is not a nostalgia for the past; but on the contrary a prodigious manifestation of the action of grace today;

    4. Obviously, this way of acting contrasts with the general spirit which reigns in the Church. The Roman sanctions as well as the will of the authorities to impose the post-conciliar reforms, have forced us to live in a certain autarchy. This is the meaning of the survival operation of Tradition ...

    5. Monseigneur Lefebvre, however, never wanted to separate himself from the Church . It is with great precaution that in the sermon of the consecrations and in other writings he manifested our attachment to the Church by refusing any schismatic spirit. Both his actions before the consecrations and his remarks afterwards show that for him there was no alternative: the pope remains the pope, the bishops of the bishops, with their prerogatives, even if they make mistakes , even heresies. That is why he always demanded that we appoint them to the Canon of the Mass .

    Here we touch on the crux of the problem that affects us all, for it involves our future, and even our existence. How can we concretely hold the principle of obedience to the Church when in the very name of obedience we must reject everything from the errors that destroy it?

    A line of action has been defined, in particular at the Chapters of 2006 and 2012. It emerges from a set of principles and practical applications. The principles do not change, but the circumstances in which they must be applied change and require adjustments or clarifications, which was done in 2012 or last year in Anzère . [Here is applied the will of "living tradition" and evolved truth that can change with the times. The Document of 2006 and 2012 is in direct opposition to each other. One (2006) is based on firm doctrinal clarifications and the other (2012) based on canonical favors.]

    The fundamental principle that we follow from the beginning is that of fidelity to the Church and its perennial teaching. For the Church can not change either the faith or the commandments of God. The accidental modifications, the new dispositions which it applies prudently throughout the centuries, must correspond to this first principle: " nihil novi nisi quod traditum est ". That is why we cry out loud and clear that we remain Catholic even if we do not follow the reforms of the last fifty years and refuse to follow the ecclesiastical authorities whenever they wish to impose them. [Ahem..."not following the reforms of Vatican II"? Acceptance and promotion of the 1983 code of canon law, hybrid masses, and legitimacy of the novus ordo mass, etc to name a few is only a literary canard?] For nothing in the world we do not want to distance ourselves from this line of conduct. [There is the fate of the new-sspx. Bishop Fellay also said in a letter to pope Benedict on June 17, 2012, five years to the date, "I committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications."]

    This may give the impression of a certain contradiction: we affirm our submission to the legitimate authority and we almost systematically refuse to follow it. However, with the help of time and human nature being what it is, some of us adopt erroneous attitudes, either by exaggeration, by simplicity, or by intellectual laziness. If we are to remain in the Truth, we must also respect the Reality and verify that our affirmations of the moment really correspond to the facts as they unfold before our eyes. [So in the words of Bishop Fellay...]

    It is imperative that the justification of our line of conduct strictly respects all Catholic principles. We can not free ourselves from it. For example, it is false and very dangerous estimations to say : " We do not need a delegation for marriages "; " The substitute jurisdiction for confessions is enough for us ... "; " The acceptance of a delegation for marriages signifies acceptance of the novelties of the Council, " etc. I am afraid that some will end up "dogmatising" prudential action. It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priori refuse any advance in favor of Tradition, [neo-tradition?] free ourselves from any rule, was it established at the Council of Trent, or disregard power of keys given to the successor of Peter. We have never refused in principle to recognize the acts of the Pope when they are legitimate. [By conciliar standards or by Eternal Rome?]

    Much good, much work to bring priests or faithful to the Tradition, are thus prevented by cerebral and abstract reasoning that does not correspond to reality. I wonder how some consider the " conversion of Rome ", the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei mobility . [This reminds me so much in content of the extreme scathing letter Bishop Fellay and Frs. Pfluger and Nely sent to the three other sspx bishops on April 14, 2012] Saint Francis de Sales already understood that one did not catch flies with vinegar ...

    It is a fundamental mistake to think that there is nothing better to expect from the official Church, purely and simply identified with the modernist or conciliar Church. While we receive everything from the Church even today. All the means of sanctification, all that we bring to the faithful, we have from this Church with its hierarchy, its pope, its bishops, a very real and concrete Church, the one we have before us. To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work. It is like wanting to convert sinners while avoiding them! [Archbishop Lefebvre said "...concerning the mystery of a Pope presiding over the destruction of the Church: the Pope remains the Pope, but he is at the head of two churches; the Catholic Church, of which he was elected the head, and another society, the “conciliar church”, which has its dogmas, its liturgy, its new institutions, etc. The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit “church”. We must separate ourselves from it if we want to keep the Catholic Faith."]

    We must maintain the principle according to which we receive from the Catholic hierarchy, especially from the pope, but also from the bishops, the means of sanctification. [Catholic and eternal true; conciliar NO!] The axiom Ecclesia supplet is valid only in the event of failure of the authorities for various reasons, the main one being the salus animarum , the transmission of integral faith, the communication of grace through sacraments certainly valid. Even in cases where it is outside the normal exercise of authority, the principle of legislative intent must nevertheless be carefully preserved. We are not free to do what we want in the regime of the Church's substitution of jurisdiction - and I fear that we have taken a liking to this false appearance of freedom . [Bishop Fellay did emphasis in one of his recent interviews an earnest for his followers that the Ecclesia supplet is decreasing and rome is increasing in "tradition". The only life we see is a new brand of neo-tradition within the conciliar empire Bishop Fellay joined and makes no distinction of the two. Drowning in mud is the same as drowning in water.]

    We mistrust the official Church because of the grave deficiencies of disastrous reforms for the good of souls, and rightly so. But to come to the conclusion that " everything is bad " is necessarily exaggerated and false. Especially since it exists today, though imperfectly, a movement of resistance and reaction to the conciliar disaster.

    For several years now, we have witnessed a slow evolution in conservative circles. There is today a real realization of the gravity of the widespread errors, a questioning of certain reforms of the Council. In liturgy as in theology, there is a real desire for a return to much more seriousness. The fact that the dominant line remains strongly progressive and does its utmost to neutralize conservative efforts no longer allows universal assertions such as " everything is corrupt ", " they are all modernists ", and so on. [The "Realization..." Yes, if one would only read the texts Bishop Fellay signed he keenly avoids for your knowledge, it all emphasizes Vatican II and leads back to Vatican II. This "conservatism" from some of the conciliarists is a desire for the sweet golden age of the 1960's and 70's. Like an old guilty conscience driving in a car only having a forward shift having remorse with his modern present wanting the exciting brothel of the early days. But reverse does not work in the revolution's machine. Either get off and admit the infidelity or carry on in the desert of thirst.]

    The same is true of the Ecclesia Dei movements , including in the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemus, convinced that the analysis of Bishop Lefebvre on Vatican II is the right one. [This is a cute riddle. Nicodemus = faith. ABL is right = justice. Conclusion for Bishop Fellay = there is true faith in the novus ordo so lets join them in the brothel.]

    This does not mean that all the prerequisites and requirements for canonical recognition are already met. Nevertheless, progress in this direction is undeniable. Here is, for example, what Pozzo wrote to me in March 2017 :

    " I underlined [with Pope Francis] that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X longs to preserve the spiritual, theological, disciplinary and pastoral identity desired by Archbishop Lefebvre, that is, experience and life of the Catholic Tradition prior to the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The pope has not expressed any reservation on this subject. Similarly, with regard to the two points discussed (the possibility of consecrating auxiliary bishops among the clergy of the Prelature and recognition of the clerical state from tonsure and commitment to celibacy as early as sub-diaconate) , His Holiness stated that he had no objection to this .

    In conclusion, we believe that it is right to say that we are gradually seeing an improvement in the conditions imposed on us by Rome, that this is part of a more general reaction to the objectively more serious situation of the Church in his outfit. But as far as Rome and ourselves are concerned, this situation is not yet satisfactory to conclude. After a short period of exaggerated optimism on the part of Bishop Pozzo, who was pushing, even probable, the date of recognition to May 13 this year, [And yet Bishop Fellay condemned anyone with having "rumors" who said the same.] we heard in turn and Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller announce that things would still take time. " To walk, to walk, and then we shall see " the papal will of not rushing. In the same way Cardinal Müller: " We must take the time, (...) we need a deeper heart conversion ". [And what is not said is the new-sspx will be under complete control within the Vatican II conciliar structure obeying each and every dictum and ecclesiastical discipline if they go against their orders. Who in their right mind makes a contract with an ecumenist thinking they will remain catholic?]

    In the present phase, therefore, we need to know whether the Roman authorities will confirm the "revitalization" of the Council in spite of the pressure of the Progressives, and whether the Pope is prepared to make specific or universal laws. which was reported to us by Bishop Pozzo.

    As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence. We have much to gain, both Tradition and the whole Church. Time works for us, and we discern every day in an evident way the hand of Divine Providence . [And time works for the superior romans -the "carrot and the stick"- the "Walrus and The Carpenter" chime heartfelt to the little oysters.]

    Let us look at the history of the Fraternity sub specie aeternitatis. And then the serene and all-powerful protection of the God of peace which it has enjoyed hitherto, should calm the minds of the troubled people of the Church.

    May Our Lady, her Immaculate Heart, grant all the members of the Fraternity peace of hearts under her benevolent protection.


    On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, Menzingen, June 11, 2017
    + Bernard Fellay



    Source

    .
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2017
  2. Martius

    Martius Well-Known Member

    Rome and the SSPX - notice the similarities in the following children’s poem:



    The Spider and the Fly


    “Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
    'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
    The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
    And I've a many curious things to show when you are there.”

    “Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
    For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again.”
    “I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
    Will you rest upon my little bed?” said the Spider to the Fly.
    “There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
    And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!”

    “Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “for I've often heard it said,
    They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!”


    Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, “Dear friend what can I do,
    To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
    I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
    I'm sure you're very welcome — will you please to take a slice?”

    “Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “kind Sir, that cannot be,
    I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!”


    “Sweet creature!” said the Spider, “you're witty and you're wise,
    How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
    I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
    If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself.”

    “I thank you, gentle sir,” she said, “for what you 're pleased to say,
    And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day.”


    The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
    For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
    So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
    And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.

    Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
    “Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
    Your robes are green and purple — there's a crest upon your head;
    Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!”

    Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
    Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
    With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
    Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue —
    Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing!
    At last,
    Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
    He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
    Within his little parlour — but she ne'er came out again!


    And now dear little children, who may this story read,
    To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
    Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
    And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

    ~By Mary Howitt, 1829​
     
  3. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member


    From the Cor Unum
    :

    … It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priori refuse any advance in favor of Tradition,

    … I wonder how some consider the "conversion of Rome ", the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church,

    … To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work.

    … As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence.



    What false ideas the present SSPX leaders have!

    To go back to the founder of the SSPX, here is an excerpt of an interview of Archbishop Lefebvre with Fideliter which took place at the end of 1990. The Archbishop said that it was “absolutely unthinkable” to collaborate with modernist Rome because of its uncatholic, modernist climate.” And this was just three months before his death!

    Bishop Fellay should follow the directives of his predecessor.


    Excerpt from interview:


    - FIDELITER: Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?

    - ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

    … Lastly, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity. They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)
     
    Martius and Scarlet Pimpernel like this.
  4. Anand

    Anand Well-Known Member

    From the Cor Unum:

    … It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priori refuse any advance in favor of Tradition,
    … I wonder how some consider the "conversion of Rome ", the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church,
    … To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work.
    … As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence.

    He was made a bishop by Abp Lefebvre precisely because Rome was occupied by antichrists. Abp. Lefebvre said so himself in that letter he wrote to the four prospective bishops. However, not everyone has a short memory like Fellay!
     
  5. unbrandable

    unbrandable Well-Known Member


    This is true. In his conferences and sermons, Archbishop Lefebvre was always mentioning that the enemies (freemasons) were in the Church. We never hear about this anymore with the current SSPX leaders.


    Archbishop Lefebvre:

    -“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)

    -“If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)

    -"The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below. ... This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove." (Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987)

    -“So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)

    -“Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.” (Two Years After the Consecration, September 6, 1990)

    -“We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith.” ((Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

    -“A non-aggressive agreement has been made between the Church and masonry. It was covered up by calling it aggiornamento, reaching out to the world, ecumenism.” (Le Figaro, August 2, 1976)

    -“There were direct contacts precisely between Cardinal Bea and the Masonic Lodge here in New York and in Washington, with the B'nai Brith, the Jewish Lodge numbering 75,000 members, and with the lodges of the whole world. Why did these contacts take place? Why did Cardinal Bea come in the name of the Vatican, in the name of Rome, to meet these Freemasons? In order that we would accept the “rights of man” at the Council. How could we accept them? By accepting Religious Liberty, which is one of the “rights of man.” Hence, to accept Religious Liberty was in principle to accept the “rights of man” within the Church. Now, the Church has always condemned these declarations on the “rights of man” which have been made against the authority of God.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)

    -“Everyone knows that in the Vatican an influential liberal-Masonic mafia is active, without whose “placet” [approval] no change is possible. And so we have arrived at the present moment of the Church in which the triumph of Liberalism is being celebrated.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)

    -“But, of course, I have no illusions: even if the pope wanted to make those corrections, he could not do so. That “liberal-Masonic mafia” to which I have already alluded cannot tolerate it…all the American newspapers wrote that, before the Council, Cardinal Bea, the founder of the Vatican Secretariat for ecumenism, met the leaders of the most influential Jewish-Masonic lodge at the Hotel Astoria in New York and asked them what they expected of the Council. “A statement on religious liberty,” they told him.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)

    -“It's very difficult to say, "This man is a Freemason," "This man is a Freemason," or "This man is a Freemason." We don't know. It's very difficult. It is certain that there are some cardinals, some bishops, cardinals in the Curia, or monsignors or secretaries of congregations in Rome that are Freemasons. That is certain because the Freemasons themselves have said that. They have said that they have in their lodge some priests and bishops. It is certain that there are some cardinals and many monsignors in Rome who do the same work as the Freemasons; they have the same thinking, the same mind. Willebrandt is Prefect of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, and Archbishop Silvestrini is the first secretary of Cardinal Casaroli who is Secretary of State—and his right hand is Silvestrini. He is a great power in the Curia. He nominates all the nuncios in the world. He has a very great influence and he is probably a Freemason.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

    -“The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, and of those liberal ideas - "two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

    -“Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church! (I Accuse the Council)

    -“We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a ‘diabolical hand’ which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience... I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals... “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?” (1978 Ordination sermon at Écône)
     
    Martius and Deus Vult like this.
  6. Machabees

    Machabees Well-Known Member

    Indeed Bishop Fellay is making some 'tough talk'. Not only is it obvious he is trying to control a favorable outcome with the conciliarists, many speculate with a few months to go before the election of a new SSPX Superior General (SG), he is trying to push through his creation with the little time left while trying to find some favor with the "rigid" members to gain a vote. I think Rome is fully aware of this and is playing the game to squeeze Bishop Fellay the more.

    Buyer beware. A salesman knows he has a person cornered when the 'buyer' is in a pinch. The concessions become greater.

    More too, if or when a new priest becomes a SG, he has total access to the reports and records of the past SG. Is Bishop Fellay afraid of this too? Will he keep the records intact for transparency and humility or do a Hilary Clinton bleachbit?

    In any regard, the conciliarists are well aware Bishop Fellay is playing two sides of the game. Msgr. Jean-Pierre Ricard, a member of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said on Oct. 6, 2017:

    "I have seen all the efforts that Pope Benedict XVI made to try to welcome as much as possible the Fraternity...It is true that Bishop Fellay has hardened a little. But we know that he has alternated at times of somewhat a hard position and at times when he was more open. We will see what will prevail. "
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://tradinews.blogspot.fr/

    Time will tell what the canary will do.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
    Martius likes this.
  7. Martius

    Martius Well-Known Member

    The signs are there and openly visible, even to the the modernists. It’s only the SSPX-ers in the pews who ‘hear no evil, see no evil...’