Reporting of Pietro Ferrari

The “semi-traditionalism” of the SSPX

I had the opportunity to read and appreciate it (in the destroying part) the “Catechism of the crisis in the Church” written by Don Matthias Gaudron, a priest of the SSPX, which is thus presented in the preface by Don P. M. Petrucci: “…to warn the faithful against the errors that have penetrated the mystical Body of Christ and spread even by the highest ecclesiastical hierarchy.”. Già a Pag. 15/16 however there is something that is out of place with the preface, as for the author:

“…all the popes have recognized, one way or another, the existence of a serious crisis in the Church".

A hierarchy that spreads errors (in contrast to what defines the Eternal Shepherd) but which also admits to spreading or encouraging them?!? Therefore the negotiations between the SSPX and Rome are aimed at converting the “wandering Church” or finding a compromise? This is a point yet to be clarified. The ambiguous motto: “Recognize and resist” causes the paradoxical backlash of the “imperfect communion” between Rome and SSPX (doctrine condemned by the Church and in words by the SSPX itself!), placing the ongoing negotiations as one of the chapters of that post-conciliar ecclesial ecumenism, always condemned by the Church (and verbally condemned by the SSPX itself). Mons. Guido Pozzo (6/3/2016 Isola on Patmos) in fact he claims how: “Members of the SSPX are Catholics on their way to full communion with the Holy See”, and on another occasion: ( https://www.cath.ch/newsf/certains-textes-conciliaires-discutes-fsspx/ ) : “ The difficulties raised by the Society of Saint Pius they are not an obstacle to the canonical and legal recognition of the Society of Saint Pius.

A Pag 25: “When the Church defines a new dogma it does not discover new truths, but it explains better and places emphasis in a new way on what, in conclusion, he always believed; the object of faith, its meaning and teaching always remain identical.”

Very good, the truth is always true whether it is solemnly defined or already habitually taught. It's a shame that those who support this are often defined by SSPX followers as "infallibilists".

On the pages. 35-36: “An infallible statement made by the Pope or a council is called a solemn judgment and is an act of the extraordinary magisterium (or solemn) of the Church; the infallible transmission of the faith by bishops dispersed throughout the world is called instead, universal ordinary magisterium.”

Therefore only the solemn magisterium of the Pope would be infallible, while his ordinary magisterium would be fallible unlike the ordinary and universal one of the bishops. Mimetic collegialism? Let's see in relation to the CVII:

Pg. 74: “The ordinary universal magisterium cannot be invoked in favor of ecumenism and religious freedom…but the condemnations made to them by the constant magisterium of the popes are infallible…”

The Pope's ordinary magisterium returns to being infallible but only up to the CVII, while the conciliar documents on religious freedom and ecumenism and the coherent subsequent teachings, they would no longer be either a solemn magisterium or even an ordinary universal magisterium. Only “authentic” texts that would have used up a lot of paper unnecessarily!?!

Pages. 56-58: “Pio IX (of the eternal father) thus summarizes the main purposes of a council: '...adopt those provisions that can help define dogmas, to condemn errors, to defend, illustrate and carry out Catholic doctrine...'.

Therefore an ecumenical council, solemn as such, he should also be infallible in 'advocating, illustrate and carry out Catholic doctrine', not only if he pronounces dogmas or anathemas. Instead…

“…The lyrics that (the CVII) he promulgated, fruit of a 'dialogue' with the world, appear more like diplomatic or 'advertising' texts (intended to give a good image of the Church) that as magisterial acts..”

'Advertising' texts (?!?) who deny the two-thousand-year-old magisterium, as if the Church had the wrong marketing strategy or implemented commercial fraud... Paul VI is called as a witness, the same one who then suspended Lefebvre 'a divinis', which instead is reported in the saying:

“…the well-known speech of Paul VI of 16 November 1964 in which he said…that the Council “has provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium…”

But on Pag. 117: "Col. Vat. II, the men of the Church have adopted a new attitude which corresponds to a new doctrine.”

Basically the CVII would have been a meeting at the bar without any serious intention, nor magisterial, nor binding but only advertising. Paul VI would have said so (which instead sanctioned Lefebvre's resistance) although, Then, Paul VI says that there have been teachings and that they fall within the supreme magisterium, first considered infallible by the 'Cath. Fsspx' and then no more... but the CVII would have transformed anyway, we don't know how, in doctrinal!?!

The fsspx cath with M continues in this sense. Lefebvre: “During the Council, its pastoral character was insisted on… but subsequently they wanted to give it an authority equal to or greater than that of previous councils.”.

And then to Pages. 177 – 179 : “…many people wanted to make people believe that the traditional mass was prohibited or abolished and BXVI recognized that it was not so those who were accused of being disobedient because they were faithful to this mass were right…Ratzinger member of the Catholic-Lutheran commission who with the Declaration of 1983 therefore a break with tradition…(Paul VI) ...he would never have abolished the privilege in perpetuum of Pius V".

To recap: Ratzinger breaks with Tradition but becomes credible when he agrees (dove ?) all FSSPX. The doubt arises whether only the SSPX understood Paul VI well (better than Paul VI himself) in disapplying and evading the CVII and subsequent reforms, while the rest of the official Church would have naively believed they had to follow him, apply in the liturgy and also develop in practice, 'popes' included.

Subsequently the CVII becomes doctrinal again on Page. 158: “…it cannot be said that the CVII has taken up the work of the CVI but has formulated a doctrine that appears difficult to reconcile with what it has taught about the uniqueness of the primacy”

In short, still confusion. Only non-binding pastoral indications or even new doctrines believed to be in conflict with the magisterium? Paul VI denies both hypotheses, recognized by the SSPX at least in words as a legitimate Pontiff:

<< LAST PUBLIC SESSION OF THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER PAUL VI

Tuesday, 7 December 1965

And it is not only the image of the Church that this Council sends to posterity, ma the heritage also of his doctrine and his commandments, the "deposit" received from Christ and meditated on over the centuries, lived and expressed, and now clarified in many of its parts, established and ordered in its integrity; living deposit for the divine virtue of truth and grace, that constitutes it, and therefore suitable to vivify anyone who piously welcomes it and nourishes their human existence.

the Church has gathered in her intimate spiritual conscience... to find herself living and operating within herself, in the Holy Spirit, the word of Christ, and to look deeper into the mystery, that is, the plan and presence of God above and within oneself, and to revive that faith within himself, which is the secret of his security and wisdom, and that love that forces her to ceaselessly sing the praises of God: He is a lover of singing, dice S. Agostino (Serm. 336; P.L. 38, 1472). The conciliar documents mainly those on divine Revelation, on the Liturgy, on the Church, to his priest, on Religious, on the Laity, they clearly reveal this direct and primary religious intention, and demonstrate how clear, fresh and rich the spiritual vein is, that living contact with the living God causes to erupt within the Church, and from her pour out on the arid clods of our earth.

But anyone who carefully observes this prevalent interest of the Council for human and temporal values ​​cannot deny that this interest is due to its pastoral character, which the Council chose as a program, and will have to recognize that that same interest is never separated from the most authentic religious interest, both for charity, that only inspires him (and where is the charity, God is there!), and both for the connection, always affirmed and promoted by the Council, of human and temporal values, with the truly spiritual ones, religious and eternal : it bends over man and earth, but to the kingdom of God it rises.

It would then be this Council, who has mainly dedicated his scholarly attention to man, destined to re-propose to the modern world the scale of liberating and consoling ascents? it wouldn't be, ultimately, a simple one, new and solemn teaching to love man to love God? love man, let's say, not as a tool, but as the first term towards the supreme transcendent term, principle and reason of all love. And then this Council resolves everything into its final religious meaning, being nothing other than a powerful and friendly invitation to humanity today to rediscover, because of brotherly love, that God "from Whom to turn away is to fall, to Whom to turn is to rise again, in which to remain is to stand firm, to Whom to return is to be reborn, in Which to dwell is to live" (S. August., Solil. 1, 1, 3; P. L. 32, 870).

PAUL VI

GENERAL HEARING

Wednesday, 12 January 1966

Know, study, applying these documents is the duty and the fortune of the post-conciliar period.

the teachings of the Council do not constitute an organic and complete system of Catholic doctrine; this is much broader, as everyone knows, e it is not questioned by the Council or substantially modified; indeed the Council confirms it, illustrates it, he defends it and develops it with very authoritative apologia, full of wisdom, of vigor and confidence. And it is this doctrinal aspect of the Council...

Then also the doctrinal "news"., or regulations of the Council appear in their correct proportions, they do not create objections to the faithfulness of the Church to its didactic function, and acquire that true meaning, which makes it shine with a superior light.

Therefore the Council help the faithful, whether they are masters or disciples, to overcome those moods – of denial, of indifference, of doubt, of subjectivism, ecc. – which are contrary to the purity and strength of faith. Esso it is a great act of the ecclesiastical magisterium; and whoever adheres to the Council recognizes and honors the magisterium of the Church;

given the pastoral character of the Council, it has avoided pronouncing dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility in an extraordinary way; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual documents.” >>

It therefore does not appear far-fetched to define the position of the SSPX as semi-traditionalist o semifallibilist: obeying only when evaluating conformity to Tradition means considering oneself the proximate rule of the Faith and substituting the Teaching Church. Precisely because this hierarchy is recognized as legitimate, such an attitude is close to schism at least in intention. Therefore it is paradoxical how the best known "traditionalist" nucleus actually exists, with this attitude, distant both from Tradition and from Saint Pius X himself.

Continue the “Cath SSPX” in considering (in a non-Catholic way) how the Church can give us rites that are perhaps invalid (due to lack of intention and sometimes due to lack of matter) and certainly to be avoided as “dangerous for the faith" come (if not worse as doubts) those of the eastern schismatics:

206 “Mass valid but not good even when certain of its validity as the rite can only be attended in exceptional circumstances, without communion in the sacred, neither union of prayers nor communion".

271 “…it is good to do everything possible to receive the sacraments with traditional rites and to avoid taking an active part in the celebration of the new sacraments”

Therefore the SSPX is or is not in communion with the Church whose authority it recognizes? Here it seems explicitly not, even if the Masses celebrated by its priests are A Cum Papa Nostro. Mons. from Galarreta (SSPX) il 17 January 2016 instead it minimizes liturgical problems. The new mass is now good or 'better':

“About the Mass they asked us to recognize its validity and legitimacy. Today they ask us to recognize the validity of the new sacraments, of the new Mass, according to the typical edition, the original Latin edition. Something that the Fraternity has always recognized.”.

Therefore the rites of new order they certainly would be now (!?!) valid, but one wonders why they are still never celebrated by the SSPX. Evidently they can be valid, discretionary and bad! All the ambiguities already highlighted were also revealed on the occasion of the removal of the excommunication during Ratzinger's 'pontificate'.

In the Removal Decree (anno 2009) of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Lefebvre, it is clearly stated how:

“Mons. Bernard Fellay, also on behalf of the other three Bishops consecrated on the day 30 June 1988, he again urged the removal of the excommunication automatic decision formally declared by Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops dated 1 July 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay says, among other things: “We are always firmly determined in the desire to remain Catholic and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept his teachings with a filial soul. We firmly believe in the Primacy of Peter and his prerogatives, and this is why the current situation makes us suffer so much“.

Therefore excommunication considered invalid and wrong, however, he made Fellay "suffer" as he was firmly and explicitly "papist" both on the Primacy and on papal prerogatives, but disobedient to the CVII and the 'post-conciliar popes' !! An excommunication that is not valid and that does not lead to repentance but that, even if it is not valid, we ask that it be removed...(Why ?!?) as if whoever had given it invalidly then, could validly revoke it ?!?! What's the point of all this, also from 'Roma'? It seems eloquent that they are all phases of an agreement, unless the whole thing is to be retained, result of schizophrenia on both sides!

The IMBC press release of 28/01/2009 sheds light on this important point:

“The Catholic Church requires, for absolution from ecclesiastical censures (among which there is excommunication) that the guilty party withdraw from his contumacy (can. 2248 §2)*, which implies that the criminal "repented of the crime committed and at the same time gave, or at least seriously promised to give, adequate satisfaction for the damage and the scandal caused" (can. 2242§3); although it is up to the absolving authority to judge the presence of these conditions (ibidem), it seems clear that the four Bishops did not comply, indeed, claiming that they had never been excommunicated (cf Declaration of Mons. Fellay del 24 January 2009). Ma, on the other hand, have the Orientals ever regretted their schism? Perhaps Athenagoras recognized the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope and the infallibility of his magisterium? Obviously not. Analogically, the absolution imparted by Benedict XVI to the four Bishops falls within the ecumenist ecclesiology of "imperfect communion" (Reintegration of the unit, The light of the nations) and "to the new style of Church desired by the council which prefers the medicine of mercy to condemnation" (Roman Observer, 26-27 January 2009).”

How does the SSPX stand towards J.M. Bergoglio? These are the words of the Lefevrian bishop Tissier de Mallerais, in an interview given on 9 March 2016 a Media-Press-News : “We have a Pope who propagates heresy; I do not judge his sin, I note that it propagates heresy. I don't say "heretic" but promoter of heresy.". Open letter from the SSPX: “Holy Father, She is the highest authority of the Catholic religion and knows well from the Holy Scriptures: without Jesus, the Son of God, there is no salvation. The evangelist John says: “He is the liar and the Antichrist, which denies the Father and the Son.” “Anyone who denies the Son, he also denies the Father; who confesses the Son, the Father also confesses. Holy Father, we beg you: Pick up the video! It leads many people to eternal damnation. As Pontiff it is his highest obligation!”

A. Tornielli, and VaticanInsider of the 15.10.2013: “It's a frontal and very hard attack, the one that comes from the Society of Saint Pius. An attack that seems to definitively close any possibility of dialogue between the traditionalist group founded by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre and the Holy See. The superior of the Fraternity, Bishop Bernard Fellay, during a conference held in Kansas City last weekend, he said that Francis "is a true modernist".
Fellay said we are living in 'very scary times', that «the situation of the Church is a real disaster. And the current Pope is delivering 10.000 times worse". «At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI , I said: the crisis of the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put a stop to it. It's like saying: the Church will continue to descend, but with a parachute. With the beginning of Pope Francis, I say: he cuts the ropes, and put a rocket to go down".
… The Lefebvrian superior concluded that obeying the current Pontiff it would mean "putting our faith in danger".
Fellay also spoke about the failed agreement with Roma last year. «Seeing what is happening now, we give thanks to God who last year preserved us from any type of agreement. And we can say that one of the fruits of the rosary crusade that we have done is that we have been preserved from such misfortune. Thank God. It's not that we don't want to be Catholic, of course we want to be Catholic and we are Catholic, and we have the right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to compromise our treasures for this. Of course not… And to think that some people continue to pretend that we are still determined to get an agreement with Rome."

Mons. de Galarreta the 17 January 2016 he is probably one of those who "continues to pretend" and in fact also minimizes the doctrinal and canonical problems, giving prominence to Bergoglio's benevolent judgment on the SSPX:

«You understand that we do not absolutely and theoretically reject the possibility of an agreement with Rome. This is what distinguishes us from the "Resistance". For them it is a question of principle, it is a doctrinal question: “You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal“. That's not our position. It needs to be repeated: This was not the position of the Monsignor. Lefebvre. He signed a protocol of agreement with Rome. And then, even when he broke after the protocol, these: “It's because the conditions necessary for our survival are not there, for our protection". Because they want to deceive us. Because they don't want to give us Tradition. Because they want to lead us to Vatican II. … I rather think that there is another aspect of the question, and that's it this Pope has told those who want to understand that we are Catholics, he said and repeats that the Fraternity is Catholic, that we are Catholic, who will never condemn us, which intends to settle our "question". And I think that - and he has already taken this path - when it becomes clear that there is no agreement with the Congregation for the Faith, I think he will gloss over any doctrinal question, theoretical, practical or otherwise… And he will take steps of his own, in the sense of a recognition of the Fraternity. He has already begun, he will simply have to continue. I'm not talking to you about what I want, but what I foresee. I predict, I think that the Pope will move towards a unilateral recognition of the Fraternity, and by way of fact rather than by way of law or law, rectory."

Bergoglio himself is almost always judged to be a modernist, he of whom Fellay said that: “he put a rocket to go down.”, he says that the SSPX is Catholic and therefore beyond the fact that he is not Catholic and that questions of principle must be overlooked, the SSPX will have unilateral recognition as a matter of fact. In practice De Galarreta admits what Don P. Petrucci said it was a paranoid fixation (http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1648:intervista-a-don-pierpaolo-petrucci-2&catid=35&Itemid=123 ) and we hope that Mons. De Galarreta should not feel offended by these words: “For years our Fraternity has been accused by certain circles of counter-action, secret pacts or compromises with the Roman authorities. It is fortunate for these people that paranoia is not a fatal disease! It is enough to read the articles and books we publish to realize how our position has remained unchanged. I particularly recommend the Italian edition in this regard, just left, of Don Gaudron's book: Catechism of the crisis in the Church, a beautiful synthesis of Catholic doctrine in opposition to conciliar errors.”

Exact, just read articles and books but to understand the opposite...Counter-order comrades, Guareschi would have said; Bergoglio helps the SSPX (?!) Fellay's word... Yes, like when it was even considered a amico of the SSPX! In this statement of 30/01/2016 ( http://adelantelafe.com/todas-las-sanciones-que-pesaban-sobre-los-sacerdotes-de-la-fraternidad-san-pio-x-estan-levantadas/ ) Fellay recalls his friendship with Bergoglio even before he was elected, a friendship that was crucial to obtaining legal recognition from the Argentine state: “He has known us since he was in Argentina... We could have directly requested recognition of the Argentine state, but it was unthinkable: we are Catholic and did not want to be treated like a sect. Then, the upper quarter of South America met with Cardinal Bergoglio to expose the problem. His answer was very clear: ‘E’ Obviously they are Catholic, who are not schismatics; I'll help you 'and it helped us!’ He communicated with Rome. He sent a favorable letter to the government, while another from the nunciature received said the exact opposite. We were in that position until he was elected pope.”

Don P. Petrucci recommends the book he prefaced (agreeable net of the previous observations) and reiterates how: “…the revolution brought about by the last Council and which was carried forward by the highest authorities in the Church – until the current turning point of Pope Francis – producing a profound crisis in the Church and creating a state of grave necessity which establishes our right to come to the aid of souls through the administration of the sacraments.”

Therefore the SSPX is in communion (imperfect ?!?) with a hierarchy deemed legitimate (?!?) but wandering that causes a state of necessity (another church ?!?) therefore it is permissible to disobey Her in the government in the administration of the sacraments (but remaining una-cum !?!), even if the new rites are then recognized (valid ?!?) by the SSPX, but avoided because they are harmful to the faith (that of the Church or the SSPX !?!); the 'pope' is thanked because with a paternal gesture he authorizes the confessions of Lefevrian priests in the Jubilee year, but he is also told that in any case and regardless of its concessions, confessions had always been (and they will be after the jubilee) valid, precisely because of the 'popes' (like him) which have caused a 'state of grave necessity' (therefore without delegating any jurisdiction in their possession, such jurisdiction would also rest with the prelates of the SSPX!!!) … The post-conciliar 'popes' would even have agreed (!?!) all FSSPX., but the best news is that “the SSPX is Catholic”, word of Bergoglio, uttered perhaps while lighting the fuse of the "rocket to go downwards". That Bergoglio who depends on the wind that blows, is evaluated differently. Sometimes it's a friend but sometimes an agreement with him – “thwarted by a rosary crusade”.- it would have been a "misfortune".

In order not to compromise the negotiations, it still seemed preferable to 'be good' and here you can read the circular sent by the District of France to its priests, which communicates a document from Menzingen which exhorts priests to participate in this conciliar jubilee of mercy: http://cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.it/2015/12/circulaire-de-menzingen-invitant-les.html?m=1

The SSPX therefore participates in Bergoglio's jubilee, that same Bergoglio who non collect a video – promoted precisely with a 'jubilee' perspective – That (words of the SSPX) “leads many people to eternal damnation”: (Photo) *****

1. of Aquinas, the newly consecrated by Mons. WiIliamson on sedevacantism: “Disputed question although perhaps imprudent”, as if it were instead prudent to consider Bergoglio legitimate Pope and be consecrated without his mandate!. The sedevacantists “they could” therefore be right in his opinion but they would be “Also” in error because they would deny the Pope's primacy of Jurisdiction. Meanwhile, no sedevacantist denies it regarding the Pope, also and on closer inspection, those who insist on presenting this main topic as if it were a goal from midfield against the opponents, they don't realize that they are kicking into their own goal.

Basically for all the priests of the SSPX (resistant-neo-Gallicans or accord-supporters-Christian Democrats) and for the Williamsonians, the papacy would not be an institution without a solution of continuity in potential, but without a solution of continuity in progress. It would not always be possible that a Pope could be elected, how impossible it would be for it not to be there actually a Pope. The papacy (CVI) it would therefore be uninterrupted not so much as an institution that does not die with the vacant seat, but uninterrupted as a visible institution, even if the visibility is of heresy or of’ mistake. So for Mons. Williamson and for the FSSPX is the sedeplenist visibility, extremist and a priori to be an essential note of the Church, falling into’ error opposite to that of the invisible Church of the Protestants. Therefore the “visible pope” it could also be an oxymoron as 'antichrist pope’ but it would still and necessarily possess the Supreme Jurisdiction, as if Christ were obliged by men (by conclave and elected non-Catholic or who does not objectively intend to receive the papacy), to deliver the The keys of heaven! In short Jurisdiction should subsist perpetually in existence according to the SSPX, but from such “visible popes” however, it would not be necessary to receive it in order to administer confessions, Jurisdiction not being a power “bureaucratic” to be delegated but a sort of free download available to everyone, something that can be used even without the authorization of its owner! In practice, an analogy could be recognized with the legal figure of false manager which makes third parties believe they can draw on powers of representation they have never received, and which once discovered is justified by saying that it can do so because it recognizes as sufficient in itself that such powers exist in the hands of the owner…(!?!?) or that of theft of use, in which someone claims to act by exercising power over things that are not theirs or as if they owned other people's property, from which he can freely draw.

After all, if Christ himself would be obliged obtorto neck to give the Keys to any person sitting, it will not appear inconsistent to believe that, obtorto neck, whoever is sitting on duty will then be obliged to give or let him take the power of Jurisdiction, maybe even without his knowledge.

As he highlights: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/pr-disaster-sspx-fellay.htm a Fellay embarrassed and worried about keeping the various souls of the SSPX together, first partially retracted what was declared on the relations between the Church and the Jews in Canada in 2012, then he is mocked by the journalist when he says he respects and venerates the Pope "in greeting him", but calling it a “disaster” behind his back, continuing to divert the question of the binding nature of the CVII with that of infallibility, as if nothing were authoritative if it were not also infallible or as if nothing were authoritative except to the extent that it is infallible ( https://youtu.be/g0eTadAYK6o ). And then, (http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1776:mons-fellay-amoris-laetitia-esortazione-terrificante&catid=67&Itemid=83) Mons Fellay always shows that he respects the hierarchy and Bergoglio: “the Superior General states that: «there is a large number of prelates, and even cardinals, and we would say even the Pope, who say not just nonsense but nonsense heresies, that open the way to sin. […]».

The ambiguous motto: “Recognize and resist” therefore imposes the absurdity that the Church from the CVII would be led by Popes incapable or reluctant to teach infallibly, but capable and willing to teach heresies to the universal Church, or perhaps the absurdity that the Church would be guided by true and legitimate Popes who do not intend to "become" Popes by abstaining from the exercise of Petrine's role (when instead they usually exercise 'teaching' and 'government'), but still continuing to be Popes, with whom to enter into union negotiations because they "recognize" (!?!) as Catholic the SSPX.

The problem is much more "concrete" than principles, much more "juridical" than doctrinal, as will become clear from this latest interview with Mons Fellay, in which he reiterates all the ambiguity that the SSPX has demonstrated in recent decades. (http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1769:intervista-a-mons-bernard-fellay&catid=58&Itemid=64 )

This time there is the admission of still being in a situation considered by the Vatican as "illegal":

“….Rome has always said and believed that our priests are under the censorship of suspension, because they are not hinged. We affirm that our priests are incardinated in the Fraternity which was unjustly or invalidly suppressed at the time by non-compliance with the laws of the Church, ma however, Rome considered and still considers today that there would be a suspension for our priests. What does suspension mean?? It is precisely the prohibition for the priest to exercise his ministry, whether it is Mass, whether it concerns the other sacraments, including the confession..."

Hence the hopeful search to reach an agreement, with a interlocutor judged to be unreliable and who speaks nonsense and heresies. An agreement suffered but increasingly judged appropriate; an agreement between two parties (FSSPX and 'Roma') CLEARLY different:

“What is our future in this situation? First things first, hold on. There is great confusion. Who will win? We don't know. And this makes our relations with Rome extremely difficult, Why we talk to an interlocutor without ever knowing if, the next day, the text we arrived at – after much discussion – to come to an agreement, it will actually be the definitive text…”

Here we come close to masochism because we trust that being able to be considered by Bergoglio as "existential peripheries" can, Perhaps, favor an agreement that leaves ample freedom to remain as we are, What more important of overcoming doctrinal ambiguities:

“It was the first approach I wanted to have with Rome. I already said from the first text: 'It's ambiguous, it won't work, we don't want it!' It was the first text, In the 2011. This time, I think it's much better. It really is there a great progress on that side compared to the previous ambiguity. This does not mean that all ambiguity has been removed…Apart from the question of clarity of the text, there is another much deeper question, much more important, and it is this: what width, what freedom would or will be given to us in the event of a regularisation? About this, I started from a phrase and the practical need of Mons. Lefèbvre who considered it as a sine qua non for regularization, that is, knowing precisely that we are accepted as we are.... One of the explanations is Pope Francis' gaze on everything that is placed on the margins, what he calls the “existential periphery". It wouldn't surprise me if he considered us as one of these suburbs to which he clearly gives his preference. And in that perspective, uses the expression “to complete a journey” with the people on the outskirts, hoping that things will improve.".

The exhausting tactics and (deliberately?) inconclusive by Mons B. Fellay, it is the only tool at his disposal to be able to balance the contradictions of the SSPX with the hope of a "winning" agreement with Rome, so as to be 'of-struggle-and-of-government' and to please (or displease) in alternating phases both the Vatican interlocutors and the more anti-Roman internal fringes tempted by Mons. Williamson, keeping them in mutual tension. If then a 'unilateral recognition' were to arrive PUBLICLY... well... 'you can't look a gift horse in the mouth' and there would be an always 'unilateral' acceptance of a probable Opus Dei-style personal prelature.

Yet it was the same Monsignor M. Lefebvre to hypothesize the hypothesis of the vacant seat as fully legitimate and probable, ( http://www.radiospada.org/2016/02/vid-documentario-sul-sedevacantismo-di-mons-lefebvre/ ) a hypothesis that is even more evident to the masses today than it was thirty years ago, center Mons. B. Fellay prefers to write a preface to an anti-sedevacantist book written by a former Freemason. In short, if it is true that there was also an ambiguity on the part of Mons. Lefebvre who signed the conciliar documents, celebrated the new "mass" and expelled the Dominican professor Michel L. from Econe. Guerard Des Lauriers, who with the Cassiciacum Thesis had clearly indicated the path to follow, it must also be said that at least publicly Mons. Lefebvre never took such a clearly anti-sedevacantist position as the wavering Fellay is doing.

It seems eloquent that in order to reject sedevacantism today both totalist and thesisist, to forcibly keep Saint Pius X and Mr. Bergoglio together in the papacy, we prefer continuous twists and clumsy somersaults in terms of doctrine and practice than seen within the post-conciliar circus, they really aren't a pretty sight.