Rome /SSPX relations

[tradical]

Well ++L was ready in 1989 to accept such a canonical regularization:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter 68, March 1989
I would have indeed signed a definitive accord after signithey continuethe protocol if we had had the possibility of protecting ourselves effectively against the modernism of Rome.

If I say today, "I would have married the girl I dated when i was 24." That doesn't mean that I wanted to marry her when I was 25 or still want to marry her. 

If LeFebvre were to have said, "Today, I would sign that deal we had in 88 in a heartbeat.  Boy, that was the deal that got away."   Nothing like that was stated by LeFebvre, instead as the crisis deepended he realized the stakes were far higher and he knew the crisis was not on the level of novelty but rather doctrine. 

So the inference to the contrary is unsubstantiated.

Nope. See above. 

Your other points are based on your error above.  Or they have already been addressed by me. 

Then as matt pointed out ++L is condemned by you.

No. Prior to the phony excomms LeFebvre acted prudently based on the view of the crisis available at the times.  His final position is where the SSPX finds itself, outside of canonical regularity with the false idea of bishops who ware legitimately excommunicated. 

The first big compromise of the SSPX was allowing that lie to be continued and Benedict XVI's act of "mercy"  Had they pushed for a nullification and a censure of JPII, we not have "Saint" JPII and the SSPX would be much better players at hardball. 

The neat thing is that so long as the sspx is willing to obey a legitimate command, does not compromise on doctrine, they continue the direction set by ++L.

I guess the truth is inconvenient eh?

Getting to Unity in Truth is inconvenient.  But, I guess you think you can get around the inconvenience of truth by choosing Unity over Truth.

So, following your statements you believe that the Archbishop in 1989 was putting 'Unity over Truth?'

Please state where the Archbishop EXPLICITLY stated that the SSPX should not accept a canonical regularization without 'Rome converting'

You can't.

However, I can point to statements immediately before and after where he EXPLICITLY stated what his intentions were in the envisioned scenarios.

I can further indicate points where given the opportunity to made a statement confirming your inferences - he does not. Instead in those cases they implicitly support that the acceptance of a no-compromise regularization was agreeable to him.

This is likewise with his own explicit citations of the doctrine of obedience by st. Thomas.  Now it is your prerogative to set aside the traditional understanding of obedience, just don't try to make usnbelieve that the archbishop would agree with you.

Also, you can imagine all sorts of fearful events that could happen ... and all I have to say is:

SO WHAT?

Those are events that are within your imagination and from a moral theology point of view are beyond the concept of a 'remote' occasion of sin.

P^3

[tradical]

So where are we at in this debate?

We know that the archbishop was ready a year after the consecrations to accept what Gerard believes to be a "unity over truth" canonical regularization.

We also know that any belief that he changed his mind is based on inferences because he never stated the principle developed by the chapter. 

In other words, Gerard is guessing....

P3

[Gerard]

Tradical,

Deal with just this for now.

If I say today, "I would have married the girl I dated when i was 24." That doesn't mean that I wanted to marry her when I was 25 or still want to marry her. 

If LeFebvre were to have said, "Today, I would sign that deal we had in 88 in a heartbeat.  Boy, that was the deal that got away."   Nothing like that was stated by LeFebvre, instead as the crisis deepended he realized the stakes were far higher and he knew the crisis was not on the level of novelty but rather doctrine. 

You simply misread or mislead as to what the Archbishop said.  You're not even guessing, you are getting it wrong.  Plainly wrong.  How many times do you need to be corrected before it sinks in? 

You have a peculiar habit of ignoring and avoiding dealing with anything that corrects your error.

I noticed you still haven't addressed my simple question regarding the Bishop Fellay interview I linked to you.
 

[Gerard]

Please state where the Archbishop EXPLICITLY stated that the SSPX should not accept a canonical regularization without 'Rome converting'

Letter to JPII revoking the protocol:

"Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us,..."

"We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its two-thousand-year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth."


Get it? We will wait for Rome to return to Tradition. We'll carry on till then. Meaning, the point of the consecrations was to carry on, until Rome returns, not Rome accepts.   

When Rome becomes Catholic, Then (meaning after that event ) the problem of our reconciliation will cease. 

You can't.

I just did. 

[Older Salt]

Unclench...

[tradical]

Tradical,

Deal with just this for now.

If I say today, "I would have married the girl I dated when i was 24." That doesn't mean that I wanted to marry her when I was 25 or still want to marry her. 

If LeFebvre were to have said, "Today, I would sign that deal we had in 88 in a heartbeat.  Boy, that was the deal that got away."   Nothing like that was stated by LeFebvre, instead as the crisis deepended he realized the stakes were far higher and he knew the crisis was not on the level of novelty but rather doctrine. 

You simply misread or mislead as to what the Archbishop said.  You're not even guessing, you are getting it wrong.  Plainly wrong.  How many times do you need to be corrected before it sinks in? 

You have a peculiar habit of ignoring and avoiding dealing with anything that corrects your error.

I noticed you still haven't addressed my simple question regarding the Bishop Fellay interview I linked to you.

So here we have another false attribution.  I quoted what ++L both said a how he acted, and gerard needs to resort to analogies and fabricated scenarios.

He hearkens back to an interview given by Bishop Fellay in an apparent attempt to sidle away from the principles involved.

There is an unwillingness to admit that the principle of "no regularization without a doctrinal agreement" or however fr. Pfluger expressed it was developed by a chapter of the sspx.  The thought that ++L held to this principle is destroyed by the actions discussed.

Example, gerard quotes the sermon given at the consecrations in support of his thesis that accepting a canonical regularization under the vaforesaid conditions is putting unity above truth.  However, it has been objectively demonstrated that both immediately prior to the consecrations and a year after the archbishop was willing to accept just such a regularization.

The principles stated explicitly were "accept us as we are" , "practice tradition as we are doing", "protected from the modernism of Rome and the bishops", allowed to maintain the method of interpreting  the council in light of tradition, freedom from the novusnordo, obedience as per St. Thomas.  All these principles are to be found guiding the sspx during the events of 2000 to now.

Further, he states that I have misunderstood obedience versus religious obedience without actually demonstrating where i specifically am in error.

He needs to deal with the actual events in their context and the principles that guide them.

An example of how pressed gerard is to justify his position is found in this statement:

Quote
What Gerard would have the sspx do is submit to the authority of a chapter  of the sspx instead of the authority of the Pope.

Not the authority of the chapter, but the authority of the pre-conciliar Popes.

As noted the pre-conciliar popes never said "no canonical regularization without doctrinal agreement".

The extents that Gerard will go to defend an unsupported belief are impressive.

But after all this, it isn't all that complicated.

Obedience to lawful authority following St. Thomas.
- resistance based their disobedience on the imagined compromise that hasn't happened. Some members (+W and fr.Pfeiffer at least) claim they are still members in spite of refusing to submit to the authority of the sspx)

- sspx stands on the same principles explicitly put forward by ++L  in its relations with Rome. Those developed by the chapter, when found in conflict with a higher principle were set aside because how does line remain Catholic if one does not abide by Catholic principles????

To this gerard now repeatscad nauseum the mantra "unity over truth"

Why?

Because the reality has demonstrated that the principles that ++L followed are not what Gerard wishes/believes them to be.

P3

[tradical]

Please state where the Archbishop EXPLICITLY stated that the SSPX should not accept a canonical regularization without 'Rome converting'

Letter to JPII revoking the protocol:

"Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us,..."

"We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its two-thousand-year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth."


Get it? We will wait for Rome to return to Tradition. We'll carry on till then. Meaning, the point of the consecrations was to carry on, until Rome returns, not Rome accepts.   

When Rome becomes Catholic, Then (meaning after that event ) the problem of our reconciliation will cease. 

You can't.

I just did.

EXPLICITLY stated that the SSPX should not accept a canonical regularization without 'Rome converting'

I don't see the explicit phrase, you are making an inference just as the sspx chapter did.

Also ...

Having problems keeping the timeline straight again eh gerard????

How about you write down the date of that letter, then that of the consecrations, the article cited by matt etc.

Reality is a bitch when it comes to cognitive dissonance.


P3

[tradical]

Gerard,
In preparation for Christmas, I will be withdrawing from the forum and this discussion until the New Year.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Holy New Year to all!

P3

[QuaeriteDominum]

Tradical,

Deal with just this for now.

If I say today, "I would have married the girl I dated when i was 24." That doesn't mean that I wanted to marry her when I was 25 or still want to marry her. 

If LeFebvre were to have said, "Today, I would sign that deal we had in 88 in a heartbeat.  Boy, that was the deal that got away."   Nothing like that was stated by LeFebvre, instead as the crisis deepended he realized the stakes were far higher and he knew the crisis was not on the level of novelty but rather doctrine. 

You simply misread or mislead as to what the Archbishop said.  You're not even guessing, you are getting it wrong.  Plainly wrong.  How many times do you need to be corrected before it sinks in? 

You have a peculiar habit of ignoring and avoiding dealing with anything that corrects your error.

I noticed you still haven't addressed my simple question regarding the Bishop Fellay interview I linked to you.

Within days of sending this letter, it is documented in +Tissier's Book that the Archbishop stated that he would postpone the Consecrations if he received a duly signed Papal commitment to an SSPX Consecration. That would indicate that the Archbishop's test for Rome's conversion was the granting of Bishops.

[Gerard]

So here we have another false attribution.

No.  It's not false at all. 

I quoted what ++L both said a how he acted,

You quoted him and drew a false inference.  You assume that he hadn't hardened his position on what was required of Rome between 89 and 90.  Otherwise, you are saying the LeFebvre regretted the consecration of the four bishops. 

and gerard needs to resort to analogies and fabricated scenarios.

I simply used an example to point out the logical inconsistency of your claims.  Bishop Fellay and Archbishop LeFebvre did it all the time. 

He hearkens back to an interview given by Bishop Fellay in an apparent attempt to sidle away from the principles involved.

No. Because the arguments made by Bishop Fellay "back in the old days" are the arguments I'm using now.

So, either Bishop Fellay was wrong then or is wrong now.  Unfortunately for the people that want "Unity over Truth" Bishop Fellay's older arguments are damning to the new ones. 

There is an unwillingness to admit that the principle of "no regularization without a doctrinal agreement" or however fr. Pfluger expressed it was developed by a chapter of the sspx.

The principle is LeFebvre's as demonstrated by his actions and numerous quotes concerning any reconciliation after the consecrations and many quotes before the phony excomms pointing out LeFebvre's goals for the SSPX. 

The chapter simply formulated the principle into a coherent phrase which was further encapsulated in the principle "Unity in the Truth" 

The alternative principle espoused by Rome is "Unity over the Truth"

So, the SSPX can't hold onto their principle of Unity and simultaneously pick up Rome's principle of Unity because  they are at odds with one another. 

The thought that ++L held to this principle is destroyed by the actions discussed.

So... your claim is that LeFebvre operated on Rome's principle of "Unity over the Truth" and the chapter changed the principle of the SSPX from that to "Unity in the Truth" 

If that's what you're trying to sell, I'm still convinced that no one with common sense is going to buy it. 

Example, gerard quotes the sermon given at the consecrations in support of his thesis that accepting a canonical regularization under the vaforesaid conditions is putting unity above truth.  However, it has been objectively demonstrated that both immediately prior to the consecrations and a year after the archbishop was willing to accept just such a regularization.

No. As The archbishop was asked why he would not simply backtrack and take the protocol. 

6: Cannot the Archbishop backtrack?

Question: In a recently appeared book, Econe, How To Resolve The Tragedy, Fr. de Margerie advises you to reconcile with Rome, in effect, by accepting what you have always rejected. What do you think?

Archbishop Lefebvre: I do not personally know Fr. de Margerie. He is full of contradictions. It is clear he is highly embarrassed when it comes to defending religious liberty ......At least the rector of the University of the Lateran and Msgr. Pavan recognize the fact. The others will say what they like in an effort to keep us quiet. But there it is, written black on white: "The State, civil society, is radically incapable of knowing which is the True Religion." The whole history of the Church, ever since Our Lord, rises up in protest against such a statement. What about Joan of Arc and the saints and all the princes and kings who were saints, who defended the Church - were they incapable of discerning the True Religion? One wonders how anyone can write such enormities!

Then Rome's replies to our objections which we sent to Rome through intermediaries all tended to demonstrate that there was no change, but just continuity of Tradition. These statements are worse than those of the Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty. It is truly officialdom telling lies.

So long as in Rome they stay attached to the ideas of the Council: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality ...they are going the wrong way. It is serious because it results in practical consequences. That is what justifies the Pope's visiting Cuba. The Pope visits or receives in audience Communist leaders who are torturers or assassins, or who have Christians' blood on their hands, just as if they were as honest as normal men.



To claim that the Archbishop would've signed an agreement after the consecrations is plainly wrong.  You can't draw an inference from his stated words and the fact that he never did sign an agreement. 

The principles stated explicitly were "accept us as we are" , "practice tradition as we are doing", "protected from the modernism of Rome and the bishops", allowed to maintain the method of interpreting  the council in light of tradition, freedom from the novusnordo,

No. This is the attempt to turn the SSPX into "Live and let live." 

"Rome must change." is one of the most constantly heard statements from the SSPX from LeFebvre till the lifting of the phony excommunications. 

Further, he states that I have misunderstood obedience versus religious obedience without actually demonstrating where i specifically am in error.

You have ignored St. Thomas discussion on the "regular mode" of obedience in religious life.  I've been simply asking you to demonstrate how the "regular mode" is consistent during a crisis of modernism among the clergy up to an including Popes. 

He needs to deal with the actual events in their context and the principles that guide them.

I do just that. 

An example of how pressed gerard is to justify his position is found in this statement:

Quote
What Gerard would have the sspx do is submit to the authority of a chapter  of the sspx instead of the authority of the Pope.

Not the authority of the chapter, but the authority of the pre-conciliar Popes.

As noted the pre-conciliar popes never said "no canonical regularization without doctrinal agreement".

The extents that Gerard will go to defend an unsupported belief are impressive.

But after all this, it isn't all that complicated.

No. It's not complicated at all.  You think the authority of Peter can force someone to accept "Unity over Truth" instead of "Unity in the Truth."

It's not complicated at all. 

Obedience to lawful authority following St. Thomas.
- resistance based their disobedience on the imagined compromise that hasn't happened.

Wrong. They refused false obedience when Bp. Fellay dropped the principle of "Unity in the Truth" in favor of "Unity over the Truth." 

Some members (+W and fr.Pfeiffer at least) claim they are still members in spite of refusing to submit to the authority of the sspx)

That's no different than LeFebvre claiming that he was still "inside" the Church. 

- sspx stands on the same principles explicitly put forward by ++L  in its relations with Rome.

No. Fr. Pfluger stated the requirement for Rome to once again turn to Tradition is gone.  It's "live and let live" now. 

Those developed by the chapter, when found in conflict with a higher principle were set aside

That "higher" principle being "Unity over the Truth."   I disagree, it's a betrayal of the highest principles.  Indifferentism towards error, to "go along to get along." 

because how does line remain Catholic if one does not abide by Catholic principles????

Which principle is the Catholic one? "Unity in the Truth" or "Unity over the Truth" 

To this gerard now repeatscad nauseum the mantra "unity over truth"

Why?

Because it is the clearest and most succinct delineation between the factions opposed to one another.

Because the reality has demonstrated that the principles that ++L followed are not what Gerard wishes/believes them to be.

P3

Your claim is LeFebvre wanted "Live and let live" and "Unity over Truth" simply does not hold. 

[Kaesekopf]

Unclench...

And sometimes people just ask for the ban.  Take a day off, according to the ban schedule.

[Older Salt]

Unclench...

And sometimes people just ask for the ban.  Take a day off, according to the ban schedule.

I was not asking for a ban.

I just said "unclench" trying to loosen up a very uptight member.

[Cantus67]

I don't know, I don't think Gerard has gone into enough detail about his position.  (*snark*).

[St.Justin]

Gerard's arguments are untenable based on the facts but why let the facts get in the way of a good fight. right?

[Gerard]

Gerard's arguments are untenable based on the facts but why let the facts get in the way of a good fight. right?

Based on that nonsense you wrote,, I doubt you even know what my arguments are.