|
|
SeanJohnson
formerly Seraphim
Reputation: 2625
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,964
|
| Nishant2011 said: | | Seraphim said: | Still fixating on the quality of the deal, ratheer than asking why we are talking about a deal at all the doctrinal issues remain.
Any talk of a deal while Rome is unconverted is an implicit acceptance of dogmatic pluralism in the Church.
No Catholic, much less Archbishop Lefebvre, would stand for this! |
Dear Seraphim, well, I really don't mean to be contentious here, but are you sure the Archbishop would have rejected a priori any offer whatsoever of canonical regularization?
| On 6 Sept, 1990, Archbishop Lefebvre said: | | Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. |
This is Bishop Fellay's own justification for being open to the possibility, through prayer and prudence, that this may be God's will - i.e. there are no prior grounds to think that it absolutely cannot be, nor did Archbishop Lefebvre say that he would absolutely refuse to consider it, even at that time. He merely said he would put the discussion on the doctrinal level, and this the SSPX under Bishop Fellay has done, and done, in my humble opinion, very well.
I think the virtue of prudence also calls for heeding the advice of one's confreres, and reasonable honesty with those souls under your pastoral care, and in this regard I feel Bishop Fellay should do more, without simply resorting to threats or appeals to obedience, to state plainly and clearly why he believes this is the course God is laying out for the Society.
Also, when you say again that nothing has changed regarding doctrine, I ask, what of the works of Msgr. Gherardini, Bishop Athanasius Schneider et al? Is the present environment at the least not a vast improvement from the Archbishop's day when many persons and groups were simply uninterested in discussing or considering doctrine at all?
|
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:
1) Just prior, he rules out any talk of a merely practical deal
2) But then proceeds to discuss, as a theoretical exercise and afterthought, why such talk is nonsense anyway when the Romans are set against it
3) You would have this snippet evince that were the Roman not opposed at that time, ABL would sign?
4) Shame on you.
|
.........................
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
|
| Posted May 14, 2012, 12:29 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Nishant
Reputation: 771
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,093
|
Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.
| Seraphim said: | | Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped: |
Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link to the full speech.
| Quote: | What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988... |
There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.
So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circumstances.
But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.
|
.........................
"There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady. This will come about one year before the end of the century." ~ St. John Bosco, "Twin Pillars prophecy", A.D. 1862.
|
| Posted May 14, 2012, 5:04 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
