Vatican on Society of St. Pius X: Position Insufficient to Restore Full Unity With Church at Present

[Dragonslayer]

I sometimes get the impression that there are people who are almost waiting in anticipation for the SSPX to be declared in schism.
I mean, who do they think they are, huh? What makes them holier than the Pope? That’ll show 'em.

Right?

I know that nothing is impossible for God.

I believe you are right TrueLight.

I also believe the Pope wants the SSPX to return to full communion, and I know the SSPX would love nothing more than to return, but not if it means having to accept the errors of modernism.

I believe the Catholic Church would profit from the return of the SSPX. But if it doesn’t happen, I believe the status of the SSPX will remain the same as it is now and they will continue to fight for what they believe in, ie Catholic tradition.

But I don’t believe the SSPX will be placed in schism. Afterall, how can they be in schism for being Catholic?

 

[JReducation]

Pope John Paul the second:Emphasis mine

Pope Benedict XVI: Emphasis mine.

John Paul II said SSPX is in schism, and Benedict the XVI said his actions did not change that. Unless I have missed something very important then sadly SSPX is in a state of formal schism.

They have never been in schism. To be in schism, means to cease to be Catholic. What they did was a schismatic act, meaning that it has the potential to lead to a schism.

For example, if I say that Mary was not a virgin. The statement is heresy. However, I’m not a heretic. The statement puts me on a slippery slope, but not in the hole.

We have to interpret words such as schism, schismatic, heresy and heretic according to tradition and according to the mind of the pope. These are legal terms and it is the pope who writes the law and defines the terms. We can’t give them the definitions that we believed once upon a time. We have to look at the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and at the mind of Paul VI and Bl. John Paul II who composed the Code to see what they meant by these terms.

Pope John Paul’s statement is carefully nuanced. He speaks about the act being schismatic, not the individuals. The individuals were excommunicated for committing are schismatic act, but were never declared to be in schism.

What is the status of any promises of obedience to these bishops a priest would have made? Is it proper for a priest to just drive down to the cathedral and send a text message to his SSPX bishop saying “adios”? Or is there a more deliberate process within the SSPX he would likely follow to terminate his membership?

Those promises are invalid. The bishops of the SSPX have no right to those promises. When the deacons of the SSPX promise obedience to the bishop who is ordaining them, at that moment, they incur a suspension. They are giving to someone, something that belongs to another.

Their obedience belongs to either the bishop of the diocese or to a canonically elected religious superior.

Those who wish to use the older rites of Holy Orders may do so, but they may not change current Canon Law. The Code of 1983 still applies, not the Code of 1917. In the Code of 1983 it is very clear that the deacon promises obedience to either his diocesan bishop or his religious superior.

The bishops of the SSPX are neither of those. Therefore, those priests can walk at any time, as did the first FSSP. They didn’t ask Archbishop Lefebvre for permission to leave. They left.

Religious who belonged to Sede religious communities and decided to come home, simply left. They had to make vows again.

No one can receive a vow or promise in the name of the Church unless he has written permission form the Church to do so. The SSPX bishops do not have that permission. Archbishop Lefebvre had it, but lost it when he was excommunicated.

It’s a series of very unfortunate events that needs to be brought to a close one way or another. The current state of the SSPX is hurting too many people. They need to come home or become a schismatic Church. Their grey status is creating division among Catholics.

If they become their own Church, it would be sad, but it would also bring closure. Those who follow the SSPX would belong to that Church and the rest would belong to the Catholic Church and there is no longer any reason to debate. Then we can begin ecumenical dialogue to reunite.

Sounds ridiculous, but that is a plausible solution. The other is to simply come home and deal with their grievances later, as have the other ED communities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

Yes and no. If the Roman Catholic Church was entirelly undemocratic there would be no need for the college of cardinals would there not?

 

[JReducation]

I believe you are right TrueLight.

I also believe the Pope wants the SSPX to return to full communion, and I know the SSPX would love nothing more than to return, but not if it means having to accept the errors of modernism.

I believe the Catholic Church would profit from the return of the SSPX. But if it doesn’t happen, I believe the status of the SSPX will remain the same as it is now and they will continue to fight for what they believe in, ie Catholic tradition.

But I don’t believe the SSPX will be placed in schism. Afterall, how can they be in schism for being Catholic?

They can be placed in schism by the Holy Father for their defiance. They have a legal obligation to submit to his authority.

a. They are ordained secular clergy.

b. They belong to a society of Pontifical Right. Meaning that the Pontiff is the highest ranking superior of the Society.

Refusal to exercise your priestly ministry in full communion with the Pontiff and the local bishops is a schismatic act. If it continues, the person can be declared to be in schism.

A person who belongs to an institute of Pontifical Right, but disregards the authority and commands of the Pontiff, breaks communion with his institute. If the Superior General of the institute supports such insubordination, he places himself ourside of communion with the institute. As each member of the institute fails to abide by the laws that govern the institute, the institute starts to die.

For this reason, they cannot remain in Limbo indefinitely. There will be no SSPX, because the original SSPX will have ceased to exist as each of them violates the laws that govern the isntitute.

This applies to all religious orders, religious congregations and societies of apostolic life that are of Pontifical Right. The pope is their highest ranking superior. They can never speak to him as equals or make demands of him.

Think about it, how fair is it to allow the SSPX to retain its status as a cleircal institute in the Catholic Church while it demands that the pope interpret tradition according to their mind; however, Dominicans, Carmelites, Franciscans, Salesians and others who are also institutes of Pontifical Right are not allowed to even speak to the pope without his permission, much less make demands of him or correct him?

How far is that?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

As an institute of Pontifical Right, the SSPX exists only at the bene placito of the Holy Father. The moment that it says that it exists because it (The SSPX) says it exists, it is in schism. All institutes of Pontifical Right exist only as long as the Holy Father gives them the right to exist.

Just to be clear, the SSPX was never of Pontifical right and was never approved by the Holy See. Quite to the contrary, it was only approved provisionally as a pious union within the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg by the bishop of that diocese in 1970, and subsequently suppressed by him in 1975. Lefebvre’s appeals of the SSPX’s suppression were denied by the Holy See. Canonically speaking, the SSPX ceased to exist in 1975, and since then the group has only carried on in a de facto sense.

 

[PhilOSophia]

The SSPX and the Pope are having a discussion. The key issue is what the documents of the Second Vatican Council mean. Given that these documents are ambiguous, this is most welcome.

Discussions are ongoing. They could take years. A great many people, who have no close relation with the Pope or the SSPX, are weighing in, in a very heated manner, with their tuppence-worth.

Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing.

 

[unafraid]

I’m coming around to this view, though I’ve hoped and prayed for a resolution. Bp. Fellay’s remarks (to the extent that he’d rather be a sedevacantist schismatic than a subject of the Holy Father) are pretty radical.

A real shame, too.

I can find no documented evidence that Bp. Fellay made the remarks which you attribute to him.

However, here is a quote from Bp. Williamson: “Dear friend of mine, I would rather be a schismatic sedevacantist than a Roman apostate. With the grace of God , neither!”

Perhaps there is confusion as to source in this particular instance, but such errors can be quite harmful in light of the dire circumstances of this situation.

 

[Exsilivm]

his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral

. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his hear.t

Thank you again for the clarity of your answers. If I understand the SSPX’s position, don’t they claim justification under one of these laws that the pope must observe? (I am not saying that they are correct - just trying to make sure I grasp their position). To answer the question whether schism might be in the offing, would it help to identify the sources of divine, dogmatic and moral law recognised as binding on a pope?

I found it interesting that in reply to Farmville, you mentioned that if the SSPX lose the name of Catholic, they will be in a similar position as the Orthodox, when viewed from the Latin perspective. I thought that might be the case.

Orthodox (ie, Greeks and others) maintain that the ancient Canons of the Ecumenical Councils are divine and dogmatic expressions, binding on all Christians. How is this relevant to the question at hand? It is interesting that traditionalists seldom draw a parallel between their relationship with the Holy See and that of the Orthodox Churches and the Holy See.

This seems (to me) counter-intuitive; almost a deliberate avoidance of exactly the issues that would answer the question under debate in this thread, as well as solving the question it concerns.

 

[ringil]

They have never been in schism. To be in schism, means to cease to be Catholic. What they did was a schismatic act, meaning that it has the potential to lead to a schism.

For example, if I say that Mary was not a virgin. The statement is heresy. However, I’m not a heretic. The statement puts me on a slippery slope, but not in the hole.

We have to interpret words such as schism, schismatic, heresy and heretic according to tradition and according to the mind of the pope. These are legal terms and it is the pope who writes the law and defines the terms. We can’t give them the definitions that we believed once upon a time. We have to look at the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and at the mind of Paul VI and Bl. John Paul II who composed the Code to see what they meant by these terms.

Pope John Paul’s statement is carefully nuanced. He speaks about the act being schismatic, not the individuals. The individuals were excommunicated for committing are schismatic act, but were never declared to be in schism.

Those promises are invalid. The bishops of the SSPX have no right to those promises. When the deacons of the SSPX promise obedience to the bishop who is ordaining them, at that moment, they incur a suspension. They are giving to someone, something that belongs to another.

Their obedience belongs to either the bishop of the diocese or to a canonically elected religious superior.

Those who wish to use the older rites of Holy Orders may do so, but they may not change current Canon Law. The Code of 1983 still applies, not the Code of 1917. In the Code of 1983 it is very clear that the deacon promises obedience to either his diocesan bishop or his religious superior.

The bishops of the SSPX are neither of those. Therefore, those priests can walk at any time, as did the first FSSP. They didn’t ask Archbishop Lefebvre for permission to leave. They left.

Religious who belonged to Sede religious communities and decided to come home, simply left. They had to make vows again.

No one can receive a vow or promise in the name of the Church unless he has written permission form the Church to do so. The SSPX bishops do not have that permission. Archbishop Lefebvre had it, but lost it when he was excommunicated.

It’s a series of very unfortunate events that needs to be brought to a close one way or another. The current state of the SSPX is hurting too many people. They need to come home or become a schismatic Church. Their grey status is creating division among Catholics.

If they become their own Church, it would be sad, but it would also bring closure. Those who follow the SSPX would belong to that Church and the rest would belong to the Catholic Church and there is no longer any reason to debate. Then we can begin ecumenical dialogue to reunite.

Sounds ridiculous, but that is a plausible solution. The other is to simply come home and deal with their grievances later, as have the other ED communities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If they become a schismatic church would they be a “Church” in the formal sense? Which of their sacraments would remain valid?

Is the SSPV defined as a “Church” as well? Are any of their sacraments valid?

Lastly, is the Old Catholic Church defined as a “Church”?

I am interested in the status we give to Churches and to “ecclesial communities.”

 

[Exsilivm]

I hope and pray that they will bend even if it’s 5 degrees. It’s a sign of some good will and they may get the Vatican to bend 10 degrees.

One would expect the SSPX could find some room to bend regarding collegiality. Doing so, after all, would appear consistent with their general position.

 

[thomas_jd]

The Vatican has told SSPX they must accept non-negotible doctrinal principles within a month or risk a painful break with Rome that would have incalcalable consequenses.
" Rueters" last friday.

 

[Lormar]

They belong to a society of Pontifical Right. Meaning that the Pontiff is the highest ranking superior of the Society.

I don’t think this is correct. The most they ever were was a “pious union” - I don’t think they ever got past that.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If they become a schismatic church would they be a “Church” in the formal sense?

Yes. They have valid bishops and valid eucharist, which are required to be considered a Church:
The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.

Lastly, is the Old Catholic Church defined as a “Church”?

I’m not 100% but I’m pretty sure they have valid bishops and eucharist so they would be a church.

 

[ddruaski]

I can find no documented evidence that Bp. Fellay made the remarks which you attribute to him.

However, here is a quote from Bp. Williamson: “Dear friend of mine, I would rather be a schismatic sedevacantist than a Roman apostate. With the grace of God , neither!”

Perhaps there is confusion as to source in this particular instance, but such errors can be quite harmful in light of the dire circumstances of this situation.

Well, let’s just be honest: Fellay and Williamson pretty much have to be in agreement on certain things like “giving in”. 4 bishops, how many years now? Fighting the same fight: Only 4 guys to become insulated to their own ideas, those of Lefebvre (and without the understanding of how he might have approached the current situation), and with the bolstering of their flock’s praise…

It’s a recipe for a very dangerous mentality on the part of the SSPX leadership.

Now, such a remark also has to be understood as coming from the man who disagrees with documented history whereas Fellay doesn’t seem to have the same ridiculous ideas attributed to him. Maybe he too thinks the Holocaust is bogus, maybe not.

But the fact remains that 25% of the SSPX Bishops would rather declare themselves, via the Holy Father, sedevacantist schismatics than be a “Roman apostate”. The irony of that declaration is the willingness to officially and damnably be told he is wrong (and thus the declarer is right) by not bending to Rome and just working this stuff out.

In essence, they’re saying they know more than the Vatican about being Catholic.

This had some weight in its other form of “let’s hold off and look at this carefully” oh… 20+ years ago where everything was fresh and needed to be examined.

Vatican II is an issue of intellectual assent. It supplied no new doctrine or dogma. I still can’t, for the life of me, figure out why, if Vatican II isn’t this game-changer that everyone says, why the SSPX can’t just be the “reenactor” group, or, like FSSP, allowed to do everything according to the older, still legitimate, rites.

If Vatican II is no different than the previous councils in what it taught, the only issue is ambiguous language.

I hope SSPX is not declared in schism. It would affect a lot more than just SSPX. It would give ammo to the people who misunderstand the situation and seek to truly affect a modernistic “Catholic” culture, it would enrage and confuse the FSSP parishioners who want to be in Rome’s good graces but still back the SSPX for their own lack of clarity regarding conciliar documents, and, frankly, it just totally underlines the reason for the Church to at least edumacate us re-re’s on why we can’t reject the wording of Vatican II if the concept is the same.

At the same time, if the attitude of SSPX is more indicated by Williamson than Fellay, cut rope and God help em.

 

[JReducation]

Just to be clear, the SSPX was never of Pontifical right and was never approved by the Holy See. Quite to the contrary, it was only approved provisionally as a pious union within the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg by the bishop of that diocese in 1970, and subsequently suppressed by him in 1975. Lefebvre’s appeals of the SSPX’s suppression were denied by the Holy See. Canonically speaking, the SSPX ceased to exist in 1975, and since then the group has only carried on in a de facto sense.

I had heard it here on CAF that they were a Society of Apostolic Right. However, if this is correct and I have no reason to doubt your information, their status is even more precarious. It means that neither the individuals have canonical status, nor does the institute have canonical status. Canonically, there is no SSPX. The SSPX is to the Catholic Church what the Girl Scouts are. They’re a group of Catholics, not a Catholic group.

For example, the FSSP is a Catholic institute. It has a right to a place in the Church, as long as it has the name Catholic. Even an association of the faithful is a canonical status. It does not have to be pontifical, but it can be. Some associations of the faithful are diocesan and some are pontifical. In either case, they are canonical. This gives them the right to call themselves Catholic and it grants them certain rights either in the diocese or the universal Church, depending on Diocesan or Pontifical.

There is catch here, which is why they complained. Once erected, a bishop cannot suppress without the consent of the pope. There are two ways to go about this. a) The pope issues the decree of suppression or b) the bishop issues the decree, sends it to the Holy See and the Holy See remains silent. If the Holy See is silent, it is assumed consent. It appears that the latter happened. This is a form of collegiality between the popes and bishops, also a form of subsidiarity. The pope stays out of it and allows the local level to deal with it.

The SSPX and the Pope are having a discussion. The key issue is what the documents of the Second Vatican Council mean. Given that these documents are ambiguous, this is most welcome.

Discussions are ongoing. They could take years. A great many people, who have no close relation with the Pope or the SSPX, are weighing in, in a very heated manner, with their tuppence-worth.

Meanwhile, discussions are ongoing.

The discussions are not ongoing. The Holy See has not budged. It has asked the SSPX to budge. The Holy Father added a clause to the response, in the hope that the SSPX will bite. He added to what Cardinal Levada worte, that Bishop Felay must clarify his response to them.

Cardinal Levada’s response is very clear. The SSPX position is not acceptable and therefore, this conversation is over. Every male religious community and diocese got a copy of the memo, long before it hit the media. Not that long, but three days before. The Latin is very crisp. There is no invitation to further dialogue. There is an invitation for the SSPX to keep talking until it says what the Holy See wants to hear as defined by Cardinal Levada.

Thank you again for the clarity of your answers. If I understand the SSPX’s position, don’t they claim justification under one of these laws that the pope must observe? (I am not saying that they are correct - just trying to make sure I grasp their position). To answer the question whether schism might be in the offing, would it help to identify the sources of divine, dogmatic and moral law recognised as binding on a pope?

I found it interesting that in reply to Farmville, you mentioned that if the SSPX lose the name of Catholic, they will be in a similar position as the Orthodox, when viewed from the Latin perspective. I thought that might be the case.

Orthodox (ie, Greeks and others) maintain that the ancient Canons of the Ecumenical Councils are divine and dogmatic expressions, binding on all Christians. How is this relevant to the question at hand? It is interesting that traditionalists seldom draw a parallel between their relationship with the Holy See and that of the Orthodox Churches and the Holy See.

This seems (to me) counter-intuitive; almost a deliberate avoidance of exactly the issues that would answer the question under debate in this thread, as well as solving the question it concerns.

Obviously, if they go into schism, they would be in the same situation as the Orthodox. I believe that the SSPX do not want to draw that parallel, because they insist that they are still Latin Catholics. They have a right to maintain the name Latin Catholic, as long as the Latin Catholic Church allows them to do so. I’m going to take a guess here and say that they would be foolish to compare themselves to the Orthodox, because they have been fighting the word “schismatic”. The first generation Orthodox were schismatic. Not a good parallel, if you are insisting that you are the final remnant of Roman Catholicism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lormar]

Cardinal Levada’s response is very clear. The SSPX position is not acceptable and therefore, this conversation is over. Every male religious community and diocese got a copy of the memo, long before it hit the media. Not that long, but three days before. The Latin is very crisp. There is no invitation to further dialogue. There is an invitation for the SSPX to keep talking until it says what the Holy See wants to hear as defined by Cardinal Levada.

Is this true that "Every male religious community and diocese got a copy of the memo, long before it hit the media. Not that long, but three days before."?

Brother, would you explain why the Vatican does this. I find it very interesting that it is done at all.

 

[Cristiano]

Is this true that "Every male religious community and diocese got a copy of the memo, long before it hit the media. Not that long, but three days before."?

Brother, would you explain why the Vatican does this. I find it very interesting that it is done at all.

I assume that it simply meant to cover every Bishop and every Superior General. I do not think that it implied every parish priest or brother.

 

[JReducation]

Well, let’s just be honest: Fellay and Williamson pretty much have to be in agreement on certain things like “giving in”. 4 bishops, how many years now? Fighting the same fight: Only 4 guys to become insulated to their own ideas, those of Lefebvre (and without the understanding of how he might have approached the current situation), and with the bolstering of their flock’s praise…

It’s a recipe for a very dangerous mentality on the part of the SSPX leadership.

Now, such a remark also has to be understood as coming from the man who disagrees with documented history whereas Fellay doesn’t seem to have the same ridiculous ideas attributed to him. Maybe he too thinks the Holocaust is bogus, maybe not.

But the fact remains that 25% of the SSPX Bishops would rather declare themselves, via the Holy Father, sedevacantist schismatics than be a “Roman apostate”. The irony of that declaration is the willingness to officially and damnably be told he is wrong (and thus the declarer is right) by not bending to Rome and just working this stuff out.

In essence, they’re saying they know more than the Vatican about being Catholic.

This had some weight in its other form of “let’s hold off and look at this carefully” oh… 20+ years ago where everything was fresh and needed to be examined.

Vatican II is an issue of intellectual assent. It supplied no new doctrine or dogma. I still can’t, for the life of me, figure out why, if Vatican II isn’t this game-changer that everyone says, why the SSPX can’t just be the “reenactor” group, or, like FSSP, allowed to do everything according to the older, still legitimate, rites.

If Vatican II is no different than the previous councils in what it taught, the only issue is ambiguous language.

I hope SSPX is not declared in schism. It would affect a lot more than just SSPX. It would give ammo to the people who misunderstand the situation and seek to truly affect a modernistic “Catholic” culture, it would enrage and confuse the FSSP parishioners who want to be in Rome’s good graces but still back the SSPX for their own lack of clarity regarding conciliar documents, and, frankly, it just totally underlines the reason for the Church to at least edumacate us re-re’s on why we can’t reject the wording of Vatican II if the concept is the same.

At the same time, if the attitude of SSPX is more indicated by Williamson than Fellay, cut rope and God help em.

There is a doctrinal issue that is bigger than the Vatican II documents. Doctrine says that the bishop must be in communion with the Pontiff. This goes beyond faith and morals. he must be in communion in governance as well. In other words, he must accept the Pontiff as his Ordinary.

When the bishops of the SSPX challenge the Pontiff and he tells them to be quiet and sit down and they say, “We will not be quiet and sit down,” they have violated the communion with the Primacy. Ergo, they have violated a doctrine.

They feel that they can be Catholic and be in dispute with the pope. Cardinal Levada is telling them, “No you can’t and if your persist, there are going to be serious consequences that none of us would like to see happen.”

This is not just some theologian arguing about birth control. This is about bishops who have clearly said that the Vatican must see things their way. That’s a doctrinal issue. The pope does not see things the way of the bishops. Collegiality means that his a bishop as are they, but it does not mean that he is subordinate to them. Therefore, he has a moral obligation to hear them out. He has no obligation to take their advice or to “convert” to their thinking. There is one of the doctrinal problems. Catholics cannot make demands on the pope and cannot dictate to the pope.

Even St. Paul used his powers of persuasion, not confrontation. He never spoke to Peter as if speaking to an equal and never threatened to walk, if Peter insisted on his point. You can’t call the pope, Holy Father and then say that the father has to submit to the son. In doctrine, that’s not the way the Church works.

This is a big doctrinal issue, which the FSSP does not have, nor do any of the other ED communities. They ask questions. They dialogue when they are given permission to dialogue. They stay on topic as outlined by the Vatican. They don’t discuss whatever the Vatican says may not be discussed. Those individuals that insist on violating these rules are simply ignored. They don’t get any attention. This is the difference between the ED communities and the SSPX.

Many people ask questions about statements in Vatican II, the CCC and Canon Law. We get answers to some and we’re told that others are not up for discussion. When we’re told that X is not up for discussion, we simply bow and say, “Yes, Your Excellency.” Life goes on.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Is this true that "Every male religious community and diocese got a copy of the memo, long before it hit the media. Not that long, but three days before."?

Brother, would you explain why the Vatican does this. I find it very interesting that it is done at all.

The communications office has an automatic information system. I don’t know the techie part of it. As soon as they get something from upstairs, it gets sent to everyone on their list. They got this information before the media did.

Don’t ask me how the media missed this. All they had to do was get a copy of the memo. It’s not confidential. Very often, the media gets its hand on a copy within a few hours.

My guess is that the media did not know or that it did not think it was important enough until they saw the reaction to the information.

Every diocese has its own bulletin too. It’s not an uncommon thing. It’s a quick and cheap way of communicating using technology, rather than waiting for a letter in the mail. The idea is a good one, because you don’t want to be blindsided by something in the paper, you have the information when it’s fresh and has not been spun.

There is also other stuff in there too, such as who was appointed to what and who the pope met with today and whom he’s going to meet tomorrow, etc.

Bishops and religious superiors need to be kept in the loop, because they have to face the people who ask the questions and they have to clarify what the media spins. The average person who is interested in this story at all, which is very few, is going to approach someone at his parish, not at the Holy See.

I have seen thousands of Catholics since this memo came out. I was at a parish this weekend. No one is interested in this subject. No one asked.

We overstate how many Catholics in good standing are really interested in what is happening with the SSPX. The number is less than 1%. Most are interested in what’s happening in their parishes and in their apostolic works.

But it’s good to have it straight from the horse’s mouth than from the NYT.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sw85]

I can find no documented evidence that Bp. Fellay made the remarks which you attribute to him.

However, here is a quote from Bp. Williamson: “Dear friend of mine, I would rather be a schismatic sedevacantist than a Roman apostate. With the grace of God , neither!”

Perhaps there is confusion as to source in this particular instance, but such errors can be quite harmful in light of the dire circumstances of this situation.

Yes, it was Bp. Williamson, not Felay, my mistake.