On January 17, 2016, Bishop de Galarreta gave a conference about the SSPX’s relations with Rome. In this conference, Bishop de Galarreta stated that:
The SSPX did not disclose that offer last summer (nor did the SSPX publish Bishop de Galarreta’s conference) until February 26, 2016—the same day on which Zenit.org published substantially the same information, in an interview with “Archbishop” Pozzo.1
this coming recognition, Bishop de Galarreta assured the faithful
that Rome does not misunderstand the SSPX’s positions because
Fellay wrote an
explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we
preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready
[sic!] to do. See the conference.
We don’t know what Bishop Fellay told Rome in this “exhaustive” explanation because the SSPX keeps such content secret from the faithful unless Rome chooses to disclose it.2 However, Bishop de Galarreta assures us that Rome now has “exhaustive” knowledge what the SSPX preaches and believes.
After Bishop Fellay’s explanation to Rome, Pozzo declared that he understands that the SSPX accepts Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty. Here are Pozzo’s words:
[A]s regards the Lefebvrian criticism on religious freedom, at the bottom of the discussion it seems to me that the SSPX position is characterized by the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine against the agnostic secularism of the State and against secularism and ideological relativism but not against the right of the person not to be constricted or obstructed by the State in the exercise of the profession of religious faith.
So Pozzo is stating that Bishop Fellay supports Vatican II’s religious liberty and opposes a nation being a Catholic State. The “new” SSPX published Pozzo’s words and did not deny that the “new” SSPX accepts Vatican II’s religious liberty. Id.
This reminds us that Bishop Fellay has said favorable things in the past about Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty. For example, in 2012, Bishop Fellay says:
[Religious liberty] is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!
that Bishop Fellay is not condemning the error of religious liberty.
He says that Vatican II’s (false) religious liberty
is a very,
very limited one: very limited! This false notion of liberty for
religious errors, has been condemned continually by the Catholic
Church since the earliest times of the Church. See,
a catalogue of condemnations of religious liberty. But,
instead of condemning this fundamental, widespread error, Bishop
Fellay contents himself with saying that Vatican II’s religious
is a very,
very limited one: very limited!
little later in this same 2012 video interview, Bishop Fellay asks
which principle is involved to justify Catholics demanding the
freedom to practice the true religion. Bishop Fellay answers his own
We would argue that there might
another principle which would be
to justify [seeking freedom for the Catholic Church].
XVI and Pope Pius IX condemned religious liberty as
By contrast, Bishop Fellay says that there
might be [!] another principle which would
only did Bishop Fellay fail to condemn religious liberty in 2012, but
he said that this (false) “right” declared by the council,
a very, very limited one: very limited! In this regard also, what
Bishop Fellay says is plainly false.
Vatican II itself says that this (false) religious liberty is entirely unlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence! Here are the Council’s words:
[N]or is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others....Quoted from Documents of Vatican II, Fr. Abbott (General Editor), Document: “Dignitatis Humanae”, pp. 679-80 (emphasis added).
continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.Id.
due limitsbut makes clear that these limits concern peace and safety:
nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed.Id.
As shown in these three quotes, the Council teaches the same very broad (so-called) “right” espoused by the Freemasons in Article 10 of the French Revolution’s 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man:
No one can be molested for his opinions, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.
So in summary:
can anyone doubt Pozzo is correct that the “new” SSPX does accept Vatican II’s religious liberty, thereby imperiling the salvation of souls in the new-SSPX?
Pozzo agreed that recognition of the SSPX is coming soon:
we are now at a stage ... oriented to achieve the desired reconciliation.
Pozzo is Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, the Vatican commission in charge of the “conservative” groups recognized by Rome. In other words, Pozzo is Bishop Fellay’s future superior.
For an explanation why “Archbishop” Pozzo’s conciliar consecration and ordination make it doubtful that he is a valid bishop or even a valid priest, see these three links: