Bp. Fellay's Econe Ordination Sermon: A Step Back from the Deal?

[TrentCath]

1) I think it shows again that the maligning of Bishop Fellay has been unwarranted and unjust. The constant belittling of him. That he is out for power (ambition). That he was never worthy to be made a bishop, and he essentially was a last minute choice. That he has lost his marbles and gone the way of modernism. That he is a dictator who is purposely keeping people in the dark about the situation. Etc.

2) It shows that the situation in the Vatican is a mess. They're bringing in Abp. Di Noia to try to smooth the ground. The Pope bringing him in, knowing full well what his opinions are, shows that the Pope is not the one stalling the situation. There is a conflict between the CDF folks and the SSPX folks. Di Noia makes it quite clear that there can be objections to VII while remaining in communion, while emphasizing that the proper course it to read the in continuity with tradition. Now his job is to show how that continuity can expressed and accepted. He has an uphill battle. I think this merely sheds light on how this whole modern project is a complete failure.

Yes, it is indeed true that much of what was written by people on Cathinfo and IA was simply total rubbish, that said +Fellay has done some questionable things, his total failure to even consult the other bishops which although not necessary would have been prudent and his deferral of the ordinations of the Dominicans and Capuchins being two that come to mind.

As for Abp. Di Noia I fail to see how thats some sort of revolution  He spouts much of the same 'the council can't be wrong as it was guided by the holy spirit' etc... thinking that was decisively rejected by Bp Fellay in the last preamble.

[Meg]

It does not appear that Bishop Fellay is stepping back from any Canonical recognition.
Rather it seems the CDF has, and the Holy Father, who wanted to recognize them a month ago, has repudiated his authority and let Cardinal Levada call the shots.

Why would you think that Cardinal Levada is calling the shots?

In part, because of this statement by Fr Schmidberger:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/schmidberger-people-in-vatican-have.html

I'm not seeing where in the link provided that Cardinal Levada is calling the shots. There's one part which says that Levada "would have proposed a version to Bp. Fellay mid-June that was rolled back by a couple of months." But this does not make clear that Levada is calling the shots. Where it says "would have rolled back..." seems to mean that Levada wanted to propose something different from the Pope, but he didn't actually do so. Please point out if this is wrong.

The link also states that "The pope is in favor of a reunion, but only under clear theological conditions." I think it looks as though the Pope is in control, and no one else. Though he does allow others to give their opinions, such as Levada. That's my take on it, anyway.

[Gerard]

Bp Fellay has been more and more squirrely since his first meeting with Pope Benedict. 

In 2009, he jumped the shark when he became the tool of the enemies of the SSPX.  He operated from fear and it was obvious.  After that, he seems to have thought he would be able to muscle through a deal. 

Then the backlash within the SSPX and the lay faithful supporting him showed he will lose more than he is willing to lose.  Showing up in Rome with a small contingent puts him in no better situation than the Papa Stronsay group or the Insitutute of the Good Shepherd.  I think the 3 bishops united against him on this was the breaking point.  So, it wouldn't be unreasonable for both he and the Vatican to agree that the time is not ripe to scoop up the whole SSPX or the vast majority of it.  Best to refuse a deal, keep the SSPX intact and continue to soften it up from the inside as well as keep making overtures on the outside. 

Archbishop Di Noia is probably the "fall guy" who is going to come off like a tough guy and make it look like a good fight with Bp. Fellay defending tradition and Archbishop Di Noia playing the part of Bishop Bruskewitz from a few years back against Fr. Scott.  It'll win back some credibility for Bp. Fellay with the SSPX mainstream and the conservatives will do what they always do, warp reality to make their positions look great.  The Pope can say he "tried" and leave it to his successor to reintegrate and decimate the SSPX.  How much tinkering is going to go on with the 1962 missal is the only question.  Does it get hybridized or warped beyond recognition before or after the SSPX gets neutralized? 

[TrentCath]

Bp Fellay has been more and more squirrely since his first meeting with Pope Benedict. 

In 2009, he jumped the shark when he became the tool of the enemies of the SSPX.  He operated from fear and it was obvious.  After that, he seems to have thought he would be able to muscle through a deal. 

Then the backlash within the SSPX and the lay faithful supporting him showed he will lose more than he is willing to lose.  Showing up in Rome with a small contingent puts him in no better situation than the Papa Stronsay group or the Insitutute of the Good Shepherd.  I think the 3 bishops united against him on this was the breaking point.  So, it wouldn't be unreasonable for both he and the Vatican to agree that the time is not ripe to scoop up the whole SSPX or the vast majority of it.  Best to refuse a deal, keep the SSPX intact and continue to soften it up from the inside as well as keep making overtures on the outside. 
i
Archbishop Di Noia is probably the "fall guy" who is going to come off like a tough guy and make it look like a good fight with Bp. Fellay defending tradition and Archbishop Di Noia playing the part of Bishop Bruskewitz from a few years back against Fr. Scott.  It'll win back some credibility for Bp. Fellay with the SSPX mainstream and the conservatives will do what they always do, warp reality to make their positions look great.  The Pope can say he "tried" and leave it to his successor to reintegrate and decimate the SSPX.  How much tinkering is going to go on with the 1962 missal is the only question.  Does it get hybridized or warped beyond recognition before or after the SSPX gets neutralized? 

And of course to support these assertions you have... Zero evidence, but let's trash the bishops reputation anyway.

[Gerard]

And of course to support these assertions you have... Zero evidence, but let's trash the bishops reputation anyway.

I can fully support the statements I made concerning Bp. Fellay's contradictory behavior since Pope Benedict lifted the null excommunications. 

The speculation is based on my skepticism about his intentions based on that behavior.  Di Noia's appointment is supported by his interview in which he comes off wholly ignorant about the SSPX or the nature of the crisis in the Church.

Calling a perfectly fine bishop "radioactive" or a "handgrenade" or claiming any defense of him (based on intellectual honesty) is "odious" is far worse than anything given to both Fellay and Di Noia coupled with the fact that they can't prove their insults, but the criticism of them is real and reasonable. 

[TrentCath]

[quote author=TrentCath link=topic=3451840.msg33761670#msg33761670 date=1341183236
And of course to support these assertions you have... Zero evidence, but let's trash the bishops reputation anyway.

I can fully support the statements I made concerning Bp. Fellay's contradictory behavior since Pope Benedict lifted the null excommunications. 

The speculation is based on my skepticism about his intentions based on that behavior.  Di Noia's appointment is supported by his interview in which he comes off wholly ignorant about the SSPX or the nature of the crisis in the Church.

Calling a perfectly fine bishop "radioactive" or a "handgrenade" or claiming any defense of him (based on intellectual honesty) is "odious" is far worse than anything given to both Fellay and Di Noia coupled with the fact that they can't prove their insults, but the criticism of them is real and reasonable. 
[/quote]

I doubt it, you've not done so when challenged about this elsewhere.

And just because archbishop dinoia does something wrong doesn't mean you should join in, two wrongs don't make a right.

[JuniorCouncilor]

In 2009, he jumped the shark when he became the tool of the enemies of the SSPX.  He operated from fear and it was obvious.  After that, he seems to have thought he would be able to muscle through a deal. 

Since you say you can prove this, please do so.  I'm willing to listen, but I do think it's pretty far-fetched.

I assume you're referring to his "silencing" (in quotes because hardly effective) of Bp. Williamson after the Holocaust denial fiasco.  At the time, I was with the Dominicans of Avrille, and even though they thought Bp. Williamson was probably right in what he said about the Holocaust, they also thought that he had been foolish and imprudent to say what he did to the media.  They believed that it hurt Tradition, and that it hurt the Church, and that Bp. Fellay did the right thing-- the prudent thing-- in silencing him.  And the Dominicans of Avrille have a reputation as hard-liners.

I would be careful if I were you, because externally prudence and fear can look extremely similar.  Nevertheless, prudence is a real virtue, and should be respected as such.

I also note, that when you say "it was obvious that...", I'm very tempted to think that it's only so obvious if you're greatly oversimplifying the matter.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

And the Dominicans of Avrille have a reputation as hard-liners.

I have heard this as well.

[JuniorCouncilor]

I don't really know how accurate I think it is, but that seems to be their rep.

A few years back, Fr. Morrison over at Traditio was up in arms over their liberalism in asserting that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is, in se, valid.  So, like most everyone who's been around un certain temps, they've been painted with both sides of the brush.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I don't really know how accurate I think it is, but that seems to be their rep.

A few years back, Fr. Morrison over at Traditio was up in arms over their liberalism in asserting that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is, in se, valid.  So, like most everyone who's been around un certain temps, they've been painted with both sides of the brush.

I was told that Fr. Pierre-Marie's in Le Sel de La Terre used the subjunctive, and not the indicative, in the title. Thus, the originally title was "Why the new rite of episcopal consecration may be valid," and not "Why the new rite is valid."