In #5 above ++Lefebvre said “let them first make us such an offer!” 2 years after the consecrations…

But that’s besides the point. The fact is +Fellay behaved just like ++Lefebvre, and so your request for “repentance and the scales falling from his eyes, rather than hypocrisy” would apply just as much to ++Lefebvre as it would to +Fellay…

i.e. by your logic it was “hypocrisy” of ++Lefebvre to claim “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs” (August 1987) but to subsequently negotiate and sign a deal with those who he believed were anti-Christs - the 5th May Protocol (1988).

In other words, not only was Lefebvre opposed to a deal, but he also knew no such offer would be forthcoming.

By your logic, Lefebvre was erratic, wanting Rome to approach him with a deal, while simultaneously declaring the SSPX must stay separated from modernist Rome.

His Grace wanted (and hoped against hope) for Rome to approach him with a deal he could work with. A deal where he could work protected from the modernist blindness while still maintaining a sense of unity; a fine line but the only course of action given the times. This cannot be classed as erratic; it was responsible. It was maintaing a "spirit of obedience" despite the treachery going on around him. As Susan Bromley correctly points out, His Lordship Bishop Fellay is trying to do the same, for once you lose that 'spirit of obedience' you are no longer a loyal subject of the realm; its a slippery slope into the early stages of protestism.

It’s very interesting what +Fellay says with 1:02:45 remaining:

Synodality is “a plan to demolish the Church.” But back in 2014, his mouthpiece (Fr. Simoulin) was writing that we should not say that Rome wants to destroy the Church.

Is this an unwitting admission that we were/are right, and he was wrong?

A minute later, he notes a communist method of harming the church was to invite Catholics to collaborate with them (ie., as Rome has been doing -and the SSPX accepting- since at least the secret GREC meetings in the late 1990’s, and Fellay’s own 2012 announcement of his willingness to come to terms with modernist Rome, spawning the Resistance.

Does he now repent of that decision, or is he blind to the fact he was doing then what he condemns today?

Finally, a few seconds later, +Fellay notes that these collaborations cause men to change their principles, and once that happens, they must change their conscience to be at peace with their new principles (again, as the Resistance said was happening-via slow boiled frogs and the branding campaign- all along).

So what’s going on here?

Is Fellay repenting of having been duped by Rome (he even notes his cousin attended the Synod meeting, and said there were many who disagreed, but who didn’t dare speak up, as they’d immediately be punished, just as Fellay punished +Williamson and all those who told him he ought not be dealing with treacherous Rome).

Or is Fellay simply blind to the fact that he’s done all the things he appears to be opposing in the synodal church here?

Let us hope it is repentance and the scales falling from his eyes, rather than hypocrisy.

It’s very interesting what +Fellay says with 1:02:45 remaining:

Synodality is “a plan to demolish the Church.” But back in 2014, his mouthpiece (Fr. Simoulin) was writing that we should not say that Rome wants to destroy the Church, as he was trying to prepare and convert minds to accept a canonical accord.

A minute later, he notes the communist method of harming the church was to invite Catholics to collaborate with them (ie., as Rome has been doing -and the SSPX accepting- since at least the secret GREC meetings in the late 1990’s, and Fellay’s own 2012 announcement of his willingness to come to terms with modernist Rome, thereby spawning the Resistance.

Finally, a few seconds later, +Fellay notes that these collaborations cause men to change their principles, and once that happens, they must change their conscience to be at peace with their new principles (again, as the Resistance said was happening all along, via the branding campaign and the slow boiled frog technique).

So what’s going on here?

Is Fellay repenting of having been duped by Rome (he even notes his cousin attended the Synod meeting, and said there were many who disagreed, but who didn’t dare speak up, as they’d immediately be punished, just as Fellay punished +Williamson and all those who told him he ought not be dealing with treacherous Rome)?

Or is Fellay simply blind to the fact that he’s done all the things he appears to be opposing here in the synodal church?

Let us hope it is repentance and the scales falling from his eyes, rather than hypocrisy.

"The Resistance" (ask yourself - resistance to what exactly? And I shall come back to this) was spawned from a spirit of "non serviam"; of putting one's own will above the authority of the Church. For the sake of holding the Catholic family together, it was Bishop Fellay's duty to at least TRY to work with his Church; to show that 'spiritually' the SSPX is still in union with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church even if they are unable to trust the human element in charge. Bishop Williamson, on the other hand, wants to set up his own church; one without a Pope; one where there is no leadership and everyone can make up their own mind (the "Golden Rule"). Mr. Johnson, I have a letter in my possession in which His Lordship Bishop Williamson defends his discision to send a disgraced priest (previously under house arrest) to minister to a family of young boys. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. And it also show where this "resistance" to lawful authority leads one: sending priests who are not fit for office into the sheepfold - just like the very consilliar bishops he is condemning. The SSPX is not perfect - and I am not blind to its failings - but its the best, steadiest and most balanced out there.

Mr. Johnson, you have side-stepped the issue by attempting to mock the messenger. That is not an argument; only a sign you have been backed into a corner you do not like. I share your waryiness with regards to His Lordship Bishop Fellay - I too think he proved a little too eager to trust the powers in Rome - however - it is always easy for the minions to criticise when they do not have the huge responsibilty of the cruiser. From where I stood, he was attempting to steer the boat back toward the habour away from the 'sede vacantist' rocks that a subversive riptide had snared her towards. I call this riptide "The Williamson". This brings me to Luke 817: the key point was 'hyprocisy' - attacking what you, or the person you are championing, are doing themselves. His Lordship Bishop Williamson publically - and at times viciously - attacked Bishop Fellay for attempting to work with bishops who are directly, or indirectly, destroying the Church. Yet he himself is working against the wellbeing of the Catholic Church in much the same manner as the modernists, for all his talk of "tradition".