Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on February 03, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
-
Is he? Or did I misread the Regina Caeli letter?
-
It's the son of the internet poster.
-
Oh, so John McFarland is the dad?
-
I have much compassion for young Fr. McFarland; his father is a pompous and bellicose idiot of the highest order. Unfortunately, senior McFarland posts frequently, so poor Fr. McFarland has quite a bit of his father's stupidity to live down.
-
He and a lady called Aquila are among the most fervent supporters of Bishop Fellay on the IA forum. For some reason the lady in question labelled this forum "Thrashinfo". There is no need for this sort of thing as each forum is free to choose it's own "tendency".
-
Aquila is male.
-
Sir Wessex, in very concise wording, always seems to get their goats.
-
labelled this forum "Thrashinfo".
Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrash_metal
Could be an interesting new direction for the forum. :smirk:
:jester:
-
Oh, so John McFarland is the dad?
Yes (in case it wasn't clear from the other posts).
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20662&min=20&num=5
Mr. McFarland, you have a two-part method of operation. First, to ignore or dismiss evidence that contradicts your convictions:
"That statement is another topic for another day"
followed by delusional statements that fly in the face of evidence to the contrary:
"Once you untwist things, you realize that ABL and +Fellay that are like two peas in a pod."
Why, even old-Bishop Fellay (quotes have been provided) and new-Bishop Fellay (quotes have been provided) aren't remotely like two peas in a pod. Or were those older Bishop Fellay quotes merely "substantial anchorages?"
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=20673&min=15&num=5
I just saw the following posted by hollingsworth on Ignis Ardens, thought it was interesting:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10639
Below find an (open?) letter to a gentleman named John McFarland from Dr. David Allen White. Dr. White is a prominent figure in traditional Catholic circles. This is the story as I have been able to piece it together:
Fr. Ronald Ringrose is the pastor of St. Athanasius Church in Vienna, VA. He has worked closely with the Society for years, though he is not a formal member of SSPX. What is more, Father, apparently, has recently joined forces with Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal in resisting +Fellay & Co.
Mr. McFarland took issue with Father over things the latter was reported to have said about Pope Benedict. He expressed his displeasure with the priest in a public online forum. Father Ringrose, according to Mr. McFarland, has stated that the pope can not be followed, and that he has no papal authority. Mr. McF. accuses Fr. Ringrose of ‘practical sedevacantism.’
Dr. White, who is a parishioner at St. Athanasius, writes the following in response to Mr. McF:
(Aug. 23, 2012)
Quote:
Dear Mr. McFarland,
As you persist in criticizing Fr. Ringrose in a public forum, so must you be answered in the same manner.
In saying that whether Benedict XVI is pope or not he cannot be followed, Fr. Ringrose does not suggest the man has no authority. Benedict XVI has no authority to lead souls into heresy or sin. No pope ever has. Period.
A few examples of where Benedict XVI is leading souls:
In Aosla, July 24, 2009, Benedict XVI praised "the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and echo that praise?
In Istanbul on October 30, 2006, Benedict XVI visited the Blue Mosque and prayed with Muslim religious leaders while facing Mecca. Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" the example?
On March 3, 2012, Benedict XVI stated that Vatican II was a "true sign of God". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and agree?
On May 1, 2011, Benedict XVI beatified John Paul II, saying that his predecessor had "restored to Christianity its true face as a religion of hope". Should Fr. Ringrose begin research to find those earlier Holy Pontiffs who had destroyed that face and stopped the Catholic Church from being a "religion of hope"? (Perhaps this is one reason why Bishop Fellay said in public that he had "mixed feelings" about the beatification.)
On January 17, 2010, Benedict XVI visited the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome and referred to Our Lord Jesus Christ only once as "reaffirm[ing] Moses's teaching". Should Fr. Ringrose begin referring to Our Lord in a similar manner, especially when addressing those outside the Catholic Church?
Benedict XVI states in his book Jesus of Nazareth that the Church "must not concern itself with the conversion of the Jєωs". Should Fr. Ringrose begin rewriting St Paul's epistles or simply be glad that he might have a little extra time on his hands?
Benedict XVI on September 17, 2011, appeared in a "paraliturgical even" with a Lutheran "bishopess". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" his example and seek out a local lady and do likewise?
Benedict XVI on September 23, 2011, praised Martin Luther. Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and send up his hosannas?
On January 10, 2011, Benedict XVI affirmed that "religious freedom" was his "top public priority"? Should Fr. Ringrose hop on that bandwagon?
On November 20, 2010, Benedict XVI stated that condom use could be justified in some cases. Should Fr. Ringrose begin distributing them with clear instructions that they are to be used only in specified cases of emergency?
Need I mention Assisi III?
Must I go on? (And I certainly could.)
Should Benedict XVI actually begin teaching the Catholic faith and exhorting the Catholic faithful and the world to save their souls through the one source of salvation -- the Catholic Church -- as any Catholic Pope should and must, then he will have authority and be followed. Until that time, no soul seeking to avoid hellfire dare "follow" him.
A miracle could occur. All things are possible through God. We must pray for the poor man's conversion.
I do indeed "believe in the Church as it has always understood itself" and for that very reason I will NOT be "quits with Father", but, rather, continue to worship at Saint Athanasius Church as I have for 28 years, thanking God for such a holy priest who teaches the fullness of the Catholic faith in this nightmarish time of apostasy.
Yours in Christ and His Blessed Mother,
David Allen White
P.S. If the SSPX does begin offering mass in the area, will it be the 1962 mass consented to by their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre or the new hybrid, hegelian service currently being concocted by Bendect XVI and company? Just wondering
-
Mr. McFarland, you claim deafening silence from your opposition, but I claim you are deaf to the evidence that Menzingen has become diabolically disoriented and no longer has the will to vigilantly defend the faith:
What Bishop Fellay said in the CNS interview:
1) Those things we thought came from VII, we see from the negotiations, that they do not come from VII but from a false hermeneutic.
2) After all, the religious liberty of VII is a very narrow religious liberty!
3) To the question, is VII part of the church's tradition: I hope so!
From the DICI interview:
1) To the prospect of difficulties (i.e. restrictions on the Society's apostolate) arising from putting the society under the control of the NO bishops: the flippant answer, "Since when is life without difficulties?" As though the inability to minister to lost souls is after all a small matter!
2) When it is suggested that closer collaboration with the NO as a regularized entity might result in NO bishops coming to SSPX chapels and seminaries to say Mass, confirm, or ordain priests, he does not rule out the possibility.
At ordinations in Econe:
1) Bishop Fellay was unable to make critical distinctions, a) between actually being Catholic and being recognized as Catholic by the conciliar Roman authorities, b) between eternal Rome and conciliar Rome.
2) Evinced an emotional longing for recognition that is divorced from the reality that those whose recognition he longs for are objectively (not subjectively) heretics.
3)Cruelly refused ordinations at the last minute to properly prepared men with unquestioned vocations to the priesthood on the basis of a disagreement with their superiors as to the prudence of making a deal with apostate Rome.
Bishop Fellay's response to the objections of the other three bishops to a deal without doctrinal agreement was to parrot the Novus Ordo canard of the last 40-plus years that principled resistors to the destruction wrought by the conciliar popes are nothing more than schismatics and sedevacantists.
What Bishop Fellay as been publicly willing to do:
1) Put the Society under the authority of the NO bishops, conceding them the power to deny expansion of the society's apostolate, and according to Bp. Tissier, including the right to review "recent foundations."
2) Submit to an agreement that unilaterally excludes the other three bishops who, as Rome clearly stated, would be dealt with "singularly and separately. Thus Bishop Fellay chooses to embrace conciliar Rome at the inexcusable cost of the unity of the Society.
3) In contrast to the example set by the founder of the society, pursue extended negotiations with the declared enemies of the faith and of the Society in utter secrecy, apparently excluding even the other three bishops from the particulars of his efforts to singlehandedly turn the Society over to conciliar Rome.
4) Authorize the publication by Fr. Iscara of the shameful St. Basil's Economy of Silence with Heretics, and an overview of the history of heresies in the church which purports to prove that this crisis is no different than past crises in the church and requires a long slow work of reformation from the inside. This new argument directly contradicts the society's own publication, "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" and subverts Our Blessed Mother's promise of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.
5) Resort to the same specious tactics adopted by the enemies of the faith and of Christ's church, demanding obedience to his person and his authority as above all principles and exigencies, and in contradiction to right reason, characterizing disobedience as equivalent to schism and the error of sedevacantism.
Really, Mr. McFarland, in the face of what should qualify as scandalous departure from the spirit of and direction set by the Society's founder by the time of his death, how is one to understand your intractable commitment to the new course set by Bishop Fellay?
In retrospect, we can question the willingness of Bishop Fellay to oppose the specific instruction of Archbishop Lefebvre that the four bishops he ordained NOT hold the office of Superior General. Furthermore, Bishop Fellay, on his election to replace Father Schmidberger, pointed out that it would be an extraordinary thing for the Superior General to serve more than one term, and thus it was normal for Fr. Schmidberger to be replaced. Developments seem to have borne out the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre and the wisdom of maintaining a normal rotation of Superiors General.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20239&min=5&num=5
-
I don't know why the links aren't working. The one for the previous post should be this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20239&min=5&num=5):
Mr. McFarland, you claim deafening silence from your opposition, but I claim you are deaf to the evidence that Menzingen has become diabolically disoriented and no longer has the will to vigilantly defend the faith:
What Bishop Fellay said in the CNS interview:
1) Those things we thought came from VII, we see from the negotiations, that they do not come from VII but from a false hermeneutic.
2) After all, the religious liberty of VII is a very narrow religious liberty!
3) To the question, is VII part of the church's tradition: I hope so!
From the DICI interview:
1) To the prospect of difficulties (i.e. restrictions on the Society's apostolate) arising from putting the society under the control of the NO bishops: the flippant answer, "Since when is life without difficulties?" As though the inability to minister to lost souls is after all a small matter!
2) When it is suggested that closer collaboration with the NO as a regularized entity might result in NO bishops coming to SSPX chapels and seminaries to say Mass, confirm, or ordain priests, he does not rule out the possibility.
At ordinations in Econe:
1) Bishop Fellay was unable to make critical distinctions, a) between actually being Catholic and being recognized as Catholic by the conciliar Roman authorities, b) between eternal Rome and conciliar Rome.
2) Evinced an emotional longing for recognition that is divorced from the reality that those whose recognition he longs for are objectively (not subjectively) heretics.
3)Cruelly refused ordinations at the last minute to properly prepared men with unquestioned vocations to the priesthood on the basis of a disagreement with their superiors as to the prudence of making a deal with apostate Rome.
Bishop Fellay's response to the objections of the other three bishops to a deal without doctrinal agreement was to parrot the Novus Ordo canard of the last 40-plus years that principled resistors to the destruction wrought by the conciliar popes are nothing more than schismatics and sedevacantists.
What Bishop Fellay as been publicly willing to do:
1) Put the Society under the authority of the NO bishops, conceding them the power to deny expansion of the society's apostolate, and according to Bp. Tissier, including the right to review "recent foundations."
2) Submit to an agreement that unilaterally excludes the other three bishops who, as Rome clearly stated, would be dealt with "singularly and separately. Thus Bishop Fellay chooses to embrace conciliar Rome at the inexcusable cost of the unity of the Society.
3) In contrast to the example set by the founder of the society, pursue extended negotiations with the declared enemies of the faith and of the Society in utter secrecy, apparently excluding even the other three bishops from the particulars of his efforts to singlehandedly turn the Society over to conciliar Rome.
4) Authorize the publication by Fr. Iscara of the shameful St. Basil's Economy of Silence with Heretics, and an overview of the history of heresies in the church which purports to prove that this crisis is no different than past crises in the church and requires a long slow work of reformation from the inside. This new argument directly contradicts the society's own publication, "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" and subverts Our Blessed Mother's promise of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.
5) Resort to the same specious tactics adopted by the enemies of the faith and of Christ's church, demanding obedience to his person and his authority as above all principles and exigencies, and in contradiction to right reason, characterizing disobedience as equivalent to schism and the error of sedevacantism.
Really, Mr. McFarland, in the face of what should qualify as scandalous departure from the spirit of and direction set by the Society's founder by the time of his death, how is one to understand your intractable commitment to the new course set by Bishop Fellay?
In retrospect, we can question the willingness of Bishop Fellay to oppose the specific instruction of Archbishop Lefebvre that the four bishops he ordained NOT hold the office of Superior General. Furthermore, Bishop Fellay, on his election to replace Father Schmidberger, pointed out that it would be an extraordinary thing for the Superior General to serve more than one term, and thus it was normal for Fr. Schmidberger to be replaced. Developments seem to have borne out the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre and the wisdom of maintaining a normal rotation of Superiors General.
I don't know why the link disappeared again. I will try again, but alas, CathInfo's lousy editing features do not let you review a modification to a post. Here's hoping it works:
link to above post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=20239&min=5&num=5)
-
I don't know whether to post McFarland's vile attack on Dr. White. Except that posting links doesn't seem to work today either. Not sure why that is.
I will try posting the link:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11190&view=findpost&p=22036708
If that doesn't work,which seems to be the case today, the name of the thread on Ignis Ardens was " Little Red Book - Chairman Meow, Dr David Allen White", and McFarland wrote the most hateful post against the well-respected Dr. White on the first page, Oct 24 2012, 02:39 AM.
-
I don't know whether to post McFarland's vile attack on Dr. White. Except that posting links doesn't seem to work today either. Not sure why that is.
I will try posting the link:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=11190&view=findpost&p=22036708
If that doesn't work,which seems to be the case today, the name of the thread on Ignis Ardens was " Little Red Book - Chairman Meow, Dr David Allen White", and McFarland wrote the most hateful post against the well-respected Dr. White on the first page, Oct 24 2012, 02:39 AM.
Mr. Mcfarland is a horses ass and hopefully an embarassment to his priestly son.
-
Aquila is male.
I stand corrected. Both are also members of this forum. There are so many SSPX priests who still mistrust Bishop Fellay and want him to step down as SG. They will tell you so in private conversation. Yet there are some lay people who are blindly following and defending him and his appointees. I can understand people being reluctant to even think about quitting their chapels, but if we do not want to be a part of the Novus Ordo then we should make our voices heard.
-
I'm not sure Aquila is a member here. I think he might have been banned. Good riddance, if that's the case.
-
Aquila is male.
I stand corrected. Both are also members of this forum. There are so many SSPX priests who still mistrust Bishop Fellay and want him to step down as SG. They will tell you so in private conversation. Yet there are some lay people who are blindly following and defending him and his appointees. I can understand people being reluctant to even think about quitting their chapels, but if we do not want to be a part of the Novus Ordo then we should make our voices heard.
I must not be very up-to-date as far as the SSPX goes so might I ask what you mean by this? Is not Bishop Fellay our Superior General and doing his best for us? Would the saintly archbishop elevated him to the rank of bishop had he not thought Fellay could handle it? Last I knew we had signed nothing with Rome so I struggle to see why you are jumping to conclusions.
-
Aquila claimed on IA a while back that he was banned from here.
-
Aquila is male.
I stand corrected. Both are also members of this forum. There are so many SSPX priests who still mistrust Bishop Fellay and want him to step down as SG. They will tell you so in private conversation. Yet there are some lay people who are blindly following and defending him and his appointees. I can understand people being reluctant to even think about quitting their chapels, but if we do not want to be a part of the Novus Ordo then we should make our voices heard.
I must not be very up-to-date as far as the SSPX goes so might I ask what you mean by this? Is not Bishop Fellay our Superior General and doing his best for us? Would the saintly archbishop elevated him to the rank of bishop had he not thought Fellay could handle it? Last I knew we had signed nothing with Rome so I struggle to see why you are jumping to conclusions.
SG or not, he's not trustworthy.
-
Aquila is male.
I stand corrected. Both are also members of this forum. There are so many SSPX priests who still mistrust Bishop Fellay and want him to step down as SG. They will tell you so in private conversation. Yet there are some lay people who are blindly following and defending him and his appointees. I can understand people being reluctant to even think about quitting their chapels, but if we do not want to be a part of the Novus Ordo then we should make our voices heard.
I must not be very up-to-date as far as the SSPX goes so might I ask what you mean by this? Is not Bishop Fellay our Superior General and doing his best for us? Would the saintly archbishop elevated him to the rank of bishop had he not thought Fellay could handle it? Last I knew we had signed nothing with Rome so I struggle to see why you are jumping to conclusions.
Instead of giving me a thumbs down, could you quickly explain the situation to me. I don't like not fully realizing everything going on with the SSPX and Rome so please just inform me.
-
Read my above response. He's not doing his best.
-
Instead of giving me a thumbs down, could you quickly explain the situation to me. I don't like not fully realizing everything going on with the SSPX and Rome so please just inform me.
Read here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Collection-of-Resistance-Writings
Many of them are pretty concise letters.
-
Aquila is male.
I stand corrected. Both are also members of this forum. There are so many SSPX priests who still mistrust Bishop Fellay and want him to step down as SG. They will tell you so in private conversation. Yet there are some lay people who are blindly following and defending him and his appointees. I can understand people being reluctant to even think about quitting their chapels, but if we do not want to be a part of the Novus Ordo then we should make our voices heard.
I must not be very up-to-date as far as the SSPX goes so might I ask what you mean by this? Is not Bishop Fellay our Superior General and doing his best for us? Would the saintly archbishop elevated him to the rank of bishop had he not thought Fellay could handle it? Last I knew we had signed nothing with Rome so I struggle to see why you are jumping to conclusions.
I did not give you a thumbs down! Bp F began talking to the Vatican sometime after the Jubilee Pilgrimage of 2000. In the early 2000s his stance was no compromise on doctrine and the New Mass. There were occasions when an agreement seemed to be in the making but something or the other stalled this. We were told that the talks were off but yet, in his very next Letter to Friends & Benefactors, BpF would say: You must be wondering what's the position of our talks with Rome ( supposedly "off"!). I began to distrust him. He said this sort of thing right up to his conference in Manila in December 2011. The talks are finished. Yet, he squeezed in a line that he had heard from "someone" that the Pope had something even better on offer! What a way to behave!!!. All through 2012 it seemed clearer to some of us, that BpF had discarded the need for doctrinal safeguards prior to an agreement but had opted for canonical recognition first. Others had pointed out his change of stance as early as 2009. He went to Rome to sign an agreement on St Anthony's Day 2012 but was tripped up at the last minute by the personal intervention of BXVI, demanding that he utterly accept Vatican II and the New Mass. He was not prepared for this, thinking ( and given to understand by some) that such a demand would not be made publicly but rather a canonically recognized structure would be offered to the SSPX on that day.
Considering your comment on his being elevated to the rank of bishop by Abp Lefebvre, reports suggest that a leading Swiss benefactor appealed to the late Archbishop to include a Swiss national among the bishops he was to consecrate in 1988. The Bishops of the SSPX are there to conduct Confirmations and Ordinations/Consecrations. Abp L did not appoint BpF as Superior General.
-
+f will travel to ireland at the end of april, it is to be hoped he will recieve the same reception as did fr couture recently..
-
. ....He went to Rome to sign an agreement on St Anthony's Day 2012 but was tripped up at the last minute by the personal intervention of BXVI, demanding that he utterly accept Vatican II and the New Mass. He was not prepared for this, thinking ( and given to understand by some) that such a demand would not be made publicly but rather a canonically recognized structure would be offered to the SSPX on that day.
Catholique Refractaire
http://catholique-refractaire.blogspot.fr/...onnue-bien.html
In a pre-prepared speech Fr. Nely presented on the evening of 21st June a time-line of events between Rome and the SociCety from the beginning of the doctrinal discussions to present.
Contrary to public statements given by Bishop Fellay and reported by DICI on 8th June that he had no knowledge of a timetable and did not know what to expect from the amended preamble presented to the CDF on 14th April 2012, Catholique Refractaire reports that Fr. Nely revealed that Bishop Fellay had already been informed by the Vatican that his ambiguous Conciliar-leaning text was entirely acceptable and would be accepted by Rome without modification.
When Bishop Fellay, accompanied by Fr. Pfluger, arrived at the CDF offices on 13th June 2012 he arrived with given assurance and confidence that he would be jointly signing a deal with Rome.
-
+f will travel to ireland at the end of april, it is to be hoped he will recieve the same reception as did fr couture recently..
Who is this fr couture ... someone connected to +f?
-
I stand corrected. Both are also members of this forum. There are so many SSPX priests who still mistrust Bishop Fellay and want him to step down as SG. They will tell you so in private conversation. Yet there are some lay people who are blindly following and defending him and his appointees. I can understand people being reluctant to even think about quitting their chapels, but if we do not want to be a part of the Novus Ordo then we should make our voices heard.
I must not be very up-to-date as far as the SSPX goes so might I ask what you mean by this? Is not Bishop Fellay our Superior General and doing his best for us? Would the saintly archbishop elevated him to the rank of bishop had he not thought Fellay could handle it? Last I knew we had signed nothing with Rome so I struggle to see why you are jumping to conclusions.
I did not give you a thumbs down! Bp F began talking to the Vatican sometime after the Jubilee Pilgrimage of 2000. In the early 2000s his stance was no compromise on doctrine and the New Mass. There were occasions when an agreement seemed to be in the making but something or the other stalled this. We were told that the talks were off but yet, in his very next Letter to Friends & Benefactors, BpF would say: You must be wondering what's the position of our talks with Rome ( supposedly "off"!). I began to distrust him. He said this sort of thing right up to his conference in Manila in December 2011. The talks are finished. Yet, he squeezed in a line that he had heard from "someone" that the Pope had something even better on offer! What a way to behave!!!. All through 2012 it seemed clearer to some of us, that BpF had discarded the need for doctrinal safeguards prior to an agreement but had opted for canonical recognition first. Others had pointed out his change of stance as early as 2009. He went to Rome to sign an agreement on St Anthony's Day 2012 but was tripped up at the last minute by the personal intervention of BXVI, demanding that he utterly accept Vatican II and the New Mass. He was not prepared for this, thinking ( and given to understand by some) that such a demand would not be made publicly but rather a canonically recognized structure would be offered to the SSPX on that day.
Considering your comment on his being elevated to the rank of bishop by Abp Lefebvre, reports suggest that a leading Swiss benefactor appealed to the late Archbishop to include a Swiss national among the bishops he was to consecrate in 1988. The Bishops of the SSPX are there to conduct Confirmations and Ordinations/Consecrations. Abp L did not appoint BpF as Superior General.
Bp F began talking to the Vatican sometime after the Jubilee Pilgrimage of 2000.
And it was even before that Pilgrimage that Rome already was talking about "heal the Lefebvre schism" and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos invited the SSPX bishops to talk to him. Not to mention GREC (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/A-necessary-reconciliation) was already talking about 'reconciling' the SSPX with NewRome in the 1990s.
In the early 2000s his stance was no compromise on doctrine and the New Mass. There were occasions when an agreement seemed to be in the making but something or the other stalled this. We were told that the talks were off but yet, in his very next Letter to Friends & Benefactors, BpF would say: You must be wondering what's the position of our talks with Rome ( supposedly "off"!).
This (http://stas.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/264.html) letter has a sort of example of that. Menzingen denied the talks, even though, as +BW points out, the source that said there was a meeting was a "normally reputable Catholic news agency." +W writes the letter giving the benefit of the doubt to Menzingen, but I wonder if even he had his doubts back then, and hence includes the info that the source was "normally reputable" and that "it persisted in its story at first."
[Uh oh; links not working again. Not sure why. I will type the letters with some spaces to see if it at least shows up:
h t t p : / / stas.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/264.html
I put lots of links in this post; if anyone wants to see them, they might show up if you "quote" my post, and while still in editing mode, they should show up]
BpF would say: You must be wondering what's the position of our talks with Rome ( supposedly "off"!).
Yes, that became very tiresome after a while. Every talk he gives is that 2 or 3 hour conference, where he assumes we're all so fascinated by the status of his "relations with Rome."
I began to distrust him. He said this sort of thing right up to his conference in Manila in December 2011.
But he did sometimes let some things slip, at least when not talking to a Trad audience.
From an interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) to the Caledonian newspaper Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes (Dec. 27, 2010):
Q: The goal of your Fraternity is still to integrate the Catholic Church?
+BF: Yes, we have always maintained that we do not wish to go our own way. We maintain that we are Catholic and that we remain so. We wish that Rome will recognize us as true Bishops. Otherwise, the word schismatic is not used any longer regarding us. Now, if we are not schismatics, nor heretics, then we are truly Catholic. Otherwise, the Pope says that there is solely a problem of a canonical nature. An act of Rome suffices to state that it's over and that we reenter the Church. (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/12/interesting-words.html) This will happen. I am very optimistic.
[Source: Le Forum Catholique; tip: Le Salon Beige]
... He went to Rome to sign an agreement on St Anthony's Day 2012 but was tripped up at the last minute by the personal intervention of BXVI, demanding that he utterly accept Vatican II and the New Mass. He was not prepared for this, thinking ( and given to understand by some) that such a demand would not be made publicly but rather a canonically recognized structure would be offered to the SSPX on that day.
And it should be noted that he did accept Vatican II in the doctrinal note he sent to Rome (per info from Fr. Pfluger), but only in an ambiguous way:
"The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criteria and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself [the council] and not yet formulated."
, and the change on the day in question was they wanted him to be much more explicit.
Considering your comment on his being elevated to the rank of bishop by Abp Lefebvre, reports suggest that a leading Swiss benefactor appealed to the late Archbishop to include a Swiss national among the bishops he was to consecrate in 1988. The Bishops of the SSPX are there to conduct Confirmations and Ordinations/Consecrations. Abp L did not appoint BpF as Superior General.
Yes, not to mention that the Archbishop's first three choices for bishop disagree (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Collection-of-Resistance-Writings) with +F on this deal business.
-
This Mr McFarland is against the Resistance - calling them Fellayophobes (!). He obviously feels that all SSPX priests should be obedient to the SG, forgetting that Archbishop Lefebvre displayed a discerning obedience in his life as a cleric. This issue aside, this gentlemen also seems to be against those who "complain" about priests - any priests, Resistance or Mainstream SSPX. I wonder if this is because his son is a priest?. This is not an appropriate stance given all the priests who are making the news these days. And there were people who welcomed Vatican II for this very reason - that one couldn't or shouldn't complain about priests.
-
This Mr McFarland is against the Resistance - calling them Fellayophobes (!). He obviously feels that all SSPX priests should be obedient to the SG, forgetting that Archbishop Lefebvre displayed a discerning obedience in his life as a cleric. This issue aside, this gentlemen also seems to be against those who "complain" about priests - any priests, Resistance or Mainstream SSPX. I wonder if this is because his son is a priest?. This is not an appropriate stance given all the priests who are making the news these days. And there were people who welcomed Vatican II for this very reason - that one couldn't or shouldn't complain about priests.
He argues against Bp Fellay being duplicitous and a liar by pointing out that no deal has been signed.