Replies

Having said this, would I prefer Fellay or someone else? Yes. But I don't get to choose. Not all the chosen are exemplary in every way. The best we can hope for is orthodoxy--that is the bottom line.

I wouldn't. He may be a good negotiator to many, but from some of the recent comments before and after the Mass celebrated by Hoyos, I'm not sure if he'll pull a Rifan. If Williamson were in Fellay's position, it'd either help the "sedevacantist" cause or it would force the Vatican to cry "uncle" and fold the modernist program. Right now, nothing seems to happen because the organization is deadlocked. (But, it's kind of tense with some of the European contingent, so extreme care has to be taken perhaps.)

Contrary to what some people may think (secretly), I don't agree with everything Williamson says - especially that one issue with regards to the post-conciliar folks. To me, avoiding them at all is like set up some kind of a conclave. That's one extreme in a battle which has the "new evangelization" at the other extreme. Even so, in the letters I've read on the Web site (and in Angelus), I don't really see the "extremism" that people have accused him of.

My problem with Williamson is that he has a tendency to buy into quasi-paranoid conspiracy theories, has some nonsensical ideas about contemporary women, and is less realistic than Fellay. The problem is he is feeling more and more isolated from Rome and would not feel at home should a rapprochement occur. Fellay and the others would fit in, he wouldn't. So he has a vested interest in staying put. At the same time, it's true that Modernism is not yet a fully spent force. Things may have to get worse before they get better--i.e., before Rome starts looking to get back to basics.

What complicates the situation psychologically is that those who have found a haven from the storm with the SSPX have grown comfortable with the situation. We have mixed feelings about "regularization". There is fear that the security we have found will be lost, that the Novus Ordo establishment will exert influence with Rome to crush the movement. People have been content with the present situation which allows them to raise their kids in old-fashioned orthodoxy.

Change is always unsettling and introduces an element of danger. This is why trust is essential. As it is, Rome has not yet demonstrated it can really be trusted, especially since the Vatican is still largely the provence of modernists even now. Nothing has happened to make traditionalists feel more secure as far as I can see. Yes, the Pope has issued a new encyclical--but the same apostates hold high positions and the same liberal thinking holds sway among most western bishops.