From a post by “Mikaël” on the French Resistance Forum

[Google Translation]

“On the occasion of this meeting, some major superiors asked to put an end to the negotiations with Rome. Bishop Fellay, as at the meeting of the superiors of 2016, would have assured that “nothing” would happen by the chapter of June 2018 “which will be an ordinary chapter “.

As part of this meeting of the major superiors of the (neo) fsspx, these same superiors did not question the canonical recognitions already acquired (confessions, ordinations, marriages) without consulting a chapter. These successive acknowledgments should have been the subject of an extraordinary chapter, since they made the Pius X fraternity pass within the framework of the conciliar church. But Bishop Fellay and Rome literally mock the capitulants [General Chapter members] and the rules of the Chapters to arrive at a practical agreement without the conversion of Rome.

Bishop Fellay’s commitment to the major superiors at this meeting in Fatima is therefore no more valuable than the other Chapters and meetings in which Bishop Fellay simulated contrition.

Moreover, this “nothing” is only valid for him because in the plan of rallying in stages, it is Rome that determines the stages of this rallying. Bishop Fellay had “nothing” to do but to thank the Holy Father for his paternal gesture. This is the “nothing” of Bishop Fellay. We understood.

May the capitulants understand the game of this bishop and his clique.”

 

Brief Commentary:

Readers may recall that several months before the disastrous 2012 General Chapter, the major superiors of the SSPX (sans Bishop Williamson) gathered in Albano, Italy to consider the secret “Doctrinal Preamble.”

Menzingen had considered and hoped it had finally come to the end of a long (staged) process: The “freeing” of the old Mass; the “lifting” of the excommunications; the conclusion of the failed doctrinal discussions.

The process had run its course, and the time seemed right to Menzingen (and Rome) to test the waters in Albano for the signing of an accord.

But at that meeting, Bishop de Galarreta presented to the assembled superiors his famous “Reflections on a Roman Proposal” which at a cursory glance appeared to take a strong stance against any sort of agreement with unconverted Rome, observing among other things that doing so would:

“be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone…It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and moral authority we enjoy.”

Yet, Bishop de Galarreta gave Bishop Fellay an “out” (or what in a Vatican II document might be called a “time-bomb”).  Willing to contradict all the impregnable arguments he had just adduced against any kind of agreement with unconverted Rome, he added:

“Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing minds otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise it will only cause division and, by reaction, squabbling, anarchy.”

Well, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that consensus to change was reached months later at the General Chapter, after which a victorious Bishop Fellay could declare “we have recovered our profound unity” (i.e., by having built a consensus to change, and to prepare the minds of their clergy and faithful to change with them).

What, then, to think of all those attempts of Menzingen and their lieutenants to pretend that Archbishop Lefebvre was not really against an accord with unconverted Rome after the Consecrations, when we have Bishop de Galarreta ‘s blunt admission to the contrary?

What is this, but a “consensus to change,” and then subsequently tampering with the faith of their clergy and faithful, to “prepare their minds” to follow them in their treachery?

Is that how priests and bishops are supposed to act?

Is that “showing the respect for souls the priestly life requires” (to plagiarize Dom Lorenco Fleichman)?

Nevermind…

Bishop Fellay is a man of habit.

If you learn his habits, you can predict his behavior (as we pointed out last week in the article “Back to Square One?“).

Well, Bishop Fellay has -by inculcating doubt and scruples into his clergy and faithful- brought himself to what he believes to be the end of another process:

Having “regularized” the sacramental life of the SSPX (but only at the expense of subjecting the sacraments of confession, holy orders, and marriage to diocesan control), there really seems to him to be nothing left to do but to sign on the dotted line (if only Rome will let him).

So, taking the same page out of the 2011 Albano playbook, he convenes another meeting of major superiors (more discreetly this time, under the cover of the Fatima Pilgrimage) to broach the matter of “reconciliation” in advance of the June/2018 General Chapter.

And just as voices were heard to have been against an accord at the 2011 meeting, so too were they heard in Fatima.

But it doesn’t really matter (just like it didn’t matter then).

In much the same way the bishops at Vatican II stated their personal reservations to various conciliar documents, but voted in favor of them anyway (i.e., going along to get along), the same thing will happen in 2018 (just as it also happened in 2012): The excessive (legalistic?) worship of authority, unity, and the good of the “company” (a la Bishop de Galarreta in the Albano “Reflections”) will do their work on the SSPX, just as it has done its work on the conciliar church.

So this meeting in Fatima allows us to forecast the future to a certain degree, because we have observed the modus operandi of Menzingen and Rome before.

2011 is repeating itself in 2017, and for all the same reasons.

Consequently, 2018 will be a repeat of 2012 (and probably the definitive betrayal).

The only difference is that the SSPX is much further gone today than it was in 2011, and this in turn indicates that it will be much more “successful” in betraying the fort this time around.

print