No bishop is good if he promotes Vatican II or any part of the doctrinal, moral or liturgical poison of the conciliar church. This is true, just as no shepherd is good if he feeds his sheep a mixture of food and poison.
Further, no bishop is good if he does not use his full Episcopal authority to fight Vatican II and all the doctrinal, moral and liturgical poison of the conciliar church.
In fact, no bishop is good if he even remains silent without publicly condemning Vatican II and all the rest of the conciliar doctrinal, moral and liturgical errors.
But Bishop Fellay says that, not only are there good conciliar bishops, but even Pope Francis appoints some good ones. Here are Bishop Fellay’s words, spoken during a recent conference in which he claimed that he is in contact with good conciliar bishops:
[T]hese are young bishops! And some of them were appointed by Pope Francis! He is not just appointing bad ones!
DICI #342, October 14, 2016, p.11.1
The truth is that there are no good conciliar bishops. That would be impossible! None of them do their duty of feeding the flock with sound Catholicism and protecting the flock from spiritual evil!2 If any conciliar “bishop” did his sacred duty, he would be instantly removed from his position!
Bishop Fellay’s statement shows how far he has sunk and how he confuses good shepherds (which don’t exist in the conciliar church), with wolves. His confusion (quoted above) is a more general manifestation of the “new” SSPX’s erroneous promotion of individual (so-called) “conservative” conciliar revolutionaries, such as “Bishop” Athanasius Schneider.3 The only difference between Schneider and the more radical Cardinal Kasper relates to the types and amounts of poison they feed their flocks. However, both feed poison to their sheep and so are bad shepherds.
There are no good bishops in the conciliar church and that won’t change when Bishop Fellay fully joins the conciliar church by completing his deal with modernist Rome.
Let’s pray for the conciliar hierarchy and the “new” SSPX, that they see the conciliar church for the evil it is, and come to Tradition.
If a doctor were to spend his days killing babies, we would never call him a good doctor, because a doctor’s duty is to heal people, not kill them. We judge that doctor’s actions to be objectively evil (murder), but we don’t judge his subjective culpability and his level of ignorance, if any.
Similarly, it could be possible that a conciliar “bishop” might not be subjectively culpable for the great evil he does. But nevertheless, we would not call him a good “bishop” because his murdering souls (with conciliar error) is worse than physical murder. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.2, sed contra; IIa IIae, Q.13, a.3, ad 1.↑