On August 24, Bishop Fellay gave a conference in Australia, of which Part 6 is available here:
A) Only a FEW of the Notable Excerpts:
1) 3:00 – 4:05 – “In fact, Rome is offering us a new body, with a head, a bishop. This bishop, chosen, chose by the Pope. Three names, shall [be] presented by the Society, and taken in the Society. The bishop will have authority above priests, above religious who want to be members, and above faithful. All the sacraments. The faithful who belong to this body will have the strict right to receive all the sacraments from the priests of the Society.
2) 4:52 – 5:06 – “For you, no change from what you have now. The only thing will be recognition that you are Catholics.”
3) 5:25 – 6:16 – “In itself, you cannot imagine anything better than what is offered there. That such a thing, you cannot think that’s a trap. It’s NOT a trap. That is not what it is. Offering something like that can ONLY produce much good for us….[imperceptible] it will cause Tradition to spread in the Church. It’s impossible to think that such a thing could be meant by the enemy. The enemies have many other ways to crush us down.”
1) Readers of this forum may be familiar with my rebuttal of Fr. Francois Laisney’s letter of condemnation regarding the 2015 episcopal consecration of Bishop Jean Michel Faure, in which I observed:
“Unfortunately, he has basically forecasted to Rome (by these types of letters) an idea that going forward, all unapproved consecrations are not an option, or, that consecrations can only be performed with the consent of Rome. It is difficult, in the new Regime, to imagine Menzingen being willing to perform a consecration to perpetuate the SSPX without the permission of Rome. That being the case, what can clergy and laity expect from Menzingen in the future?
No bishops at all?
Bishops picked by Rome?
Those seem to be the only alternative futures for a Menzingen which has eagerly placed its head into the noose, and now pulls the loop tight.
Truly, this effort is well named “Operation Suicide.”
Time to Brush Up | Archbishop Lefebvre Forum
Well, that prognostication has just been confirmed in this excerpt of Bishop Fellay’s conference.
2) In this excerpt, Bishop Fellay presumes the clergy in his priories, and laity in his pews, share the same scruples he does (if they are scruples), as though we shared his concern about whether or not apostate Rome considers us Catholic for refusing the revolution it has promoted since Vatican II.
Perhaps he is correct.
Perhaps after 9 years of branding, and watching their leaders suddenly begin to tremble at the thought of not being considered Catholic by BXVI and Francis, they too have started to tremble.
And yet, for all that, here is what Bishop Fellay used to pretend to believe in this regard:
“Well, we absolutely don’t have the impression of “being outside of the Church.” I must say that very clearly. When Rome says, “Please come in!” we say, “We are sorry; we can’t.” Why? – Because we are already in!”
Apparently someone has since convinced him otherwise.
Of course, the bit about there being no change for the laity (and Gregory, this one is just for you ) is actually true in a way:
If you have CRIMETHINKED your way through all the compromises the SSPX clergy and faithful have ALREADY swallowed, then you would likely not find much difference going forward.
And as for those new compromises which Fr. Cottier (now cardinal) assures us are yet to come, well, has not the experience of the ICK, FSSP, La Barroux, etc taught Rome well that despite a little dust-up, you will go along not to lose that which you gave your souls to win?
3) Bishop Fellay has taken the bait, and now he wants you to take it.
And yet, one forgets with difficulty, the messages of yesterday from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay himself, with which we will conclude this brief post:
“That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver 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 maneuver, 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.”
One year after the Consecrations – District of the USA
Apparently, Bishop Fellay knows better?
But if so, then why did he used to tell us this:
“This famous “excommunication” which was supposed to be the final blow from the Roman authorities against the Archbishop has been, thanks to God, our protection. They built up a wall around us which was supposed to exclude us from the Church, but this wall has been our protection, at several levels. Firstly, as it was the final blow, they have no spare bullets to use against us. Secondly, by their own action, they have terminated any ways to influence us, to command us, or to oblige us to accept the unacceptable and this, thirdly, has given us a tremendous latitude at several levels.
At the level of saving poor souls drowning everywhere, we are free of the power of local bishops over us by virtue of the “excommunication.” If you are considered “outside the Church” a bishop cannot say at the same time, “I command you to get out!”
At another level – which is also amazing – this has allowed us to speak to Rome, to give arguments, to reproach the Roman authorities in such a way that would have been absolutely impossible if we had had normal relations with these authorities. In normal circumstances, it is always very difficult for a subordinate to make a remark to a superior, but especially about the pope, about cardinals, about Rome herself. The usual attitude of Rome is “be quiet,” or “obey.” It is still much like that, but now Rome is receptive to the fact that the Second Vatican Council can be discussed! This gives us some leverage.”
Would it not have been more honorable to have simply gone with Fr. Bisig, instead of trying to convince others of your own apprehensions?
And what do you say about this parting advice from Archbishop Lefebvre as he left the world:
“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p 13).
Why not at least have the candor (as did Fr. Bisig) to say that you think the old man was wrong, and that you are right?
This at least would have allowed the faithful and clergy to choose.
Perhaps you did not want to afford them that luxury?