Oh, so John McFarland is the dad?

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?"

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.                    
 

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.