Replies

How do you know why he was transferred? It might just as well have been to have his side represented more strongly in America. Why assume the worst? And why accept this writer's biased view of things? It is biased because it assumes reconciliation is a good thing. Not so. There is no point in reconciling to a Rome that remains haughtily committed to the destruction of Catholic Tradition and stubbornly clings to the modernist agenda.

Both Williamson and Fellay represent two sides of the same coin, after all, not opposites: one is mistrustful and sees danger in being reconciled too soon with Rome; the other sees danger in staying out of touch too long. And yes, it is a dilemma. SSPX has stayed uncorrupted precisely because it has been separate and able to keep alive Catholic tradition--but its own strained relations with Rome brings along with it insults and persecution. This has been stressful--yet so is premature return to an ersatz Catholicism that is Catholic in name only--only to be silenced in the way FSSP has been silenced. Bishop Fellay has called this kind of promise, complete with its offer of a special apostolic status, a zoo--in which traditionalists would be treated as oddities gradually forced by the zookeepers, first to give up the missal of '62, then eventually the faith itself.

So in a way both Williamson and Fellay are equally correct. Williamson is highly suspicious--but he has every right to be when talking about the Vatican where the name of the game is bait-and-switch. Fellay is more prudent and more willing to deal with Rome respectfully and patiently. But he knows that since Rome wishes to achieve unity without dealing with core theological problems, nothing will happen and the end result will be what we have now--both sides waiting for a miracle.

Ultima Ratio:

As usual, you are right on target. I have to laugh at the attempts some make to trash SSPX. "Eurocentric" indeed! Priests are transfered and shuffled about on a regular basis, as the need may require. Moreover, I see no "split" between the opinions of Williamson and Fellay. The two men are contemplating the trickery of Modernist Rome from different viewpoints. Rome is attempting to set-up a pincer move against SSPX--that is what this newly issued "Return of the Latin Rite" is most probably being used to do; to wit: bait.

Think about this. If SSPX accepts Rome's "offer," will the modernists who control the Vatican simply roll over in defeat? I think not. The Modernists will do precisely what they do best: deceive--change the plain meaning of words, "reform" what has always been the accepted definition of terms into something that is alien to Catholic theology. SSPX knows this is what the game entails. But, if in being aware of the trechory that defines Modernists, SSPX rejects the supposedly "good-faith offer" being set out by Rome, then the Vatican wins the public relations battle. It is a no-win situation for SSPX. The masonic Vatican bureaucrats are not to be trusted, and every member of SSPX knows the "game." There is no division within the ranks--that is Modernist propaganda.

How do you know why he was transferred?

I know people in Levis where he is currently posted. He does not claim to be on any extended vacation.

It might just as well have been to have his side represented more strongly in America. Why assume the worst?

Because he is no longer holds a Superior position, because he was removed as Second Assistant to the Superior General on the General Council, and because he has little grasp of the English language. How effective can the reconciliation position be presented in America by a priest who once was superior and is no longer so, and who does not speak or grasp the language of the people?

Hence, the outrage. Only a sedevacantist would find this news encouraging.