I thought this might be of some interest (I left some out for brevity):

http://christorchaos.com/TrulyNeedlessStrife.html

There was a time in the mid-1970s (I believe that it was in the year 1974) that Johnny Carson, by then the very established "king of late-night television," gave a comedy monologue during an Emmy Awards telecast in which he joked about a made-for-television motion picture that was so egregiously bad that executives of the network that had commissioned its production, the American Broadcasting Company, decided not to show it after it had been completed.

Carson opined about the film and ABC-TV by saying, "It didn't live down their standards." After the audience groaned audibly, Carson, nonplussed, said of the network that had hosted his Who(m) Do You Trust game show from September 30, 1957, until the September 7, 1962, twenty-four days before he took over The Tonight Show (which became known thereafter as The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson), "What can they do to me?"

Well, what can within the Society of Saint Pius X do for posting yet another little record article on the truly needless strife that has taken place recently over the Society's potential admission as a "full, active and conscious participant" in the One World Ecuмenical Church of conciliarism?

After all, I am in held in near universal scorn all across and and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide. Although it is not very enjoyable to be disliked, I accept this, of course, as but a very small price that I must pay to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for my many terrible sins. We must be faithful to the truth as we know it to be no matter the consequences.

Although there have been all manner of statements and rebuttals made by priests within the Society of Saint Pius X, it would be pointless to try to go through each one as there are so much confusion and so many contradictions as to numb the mind.

For present purposes, however, it will be sufficient to remind those who are interested in avoiding a case of vertigo to withdraw themselves from the needless strife that have opened up within the ranks of the Society of Saint Pius X, it is useful to illustrate some key points once again.

Mind you, I realize that many of those who have associated with the Society of Saint Pius X have a deep attachment to the person of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I realize also that others believe that the Society is the singular instrument chosen by God Himself to defend the Catholic Faith in these turbulent times while yet others are convinced that its "resist but recognize" approach is infallibly correct and that any assertion to the contrary is tantamount to heresy.

It is very natural for Catholics to seek an anchor in the person of a spiritual father or a particular community of priests or a particular chapel in these times of apostasy and betrayal. As I know from my own rather disastrous experience, which has been roundly and justly mocked, of course, thinking that one has "arrived" at "the" place that is safest and/or the best is rather self-delusional in these perilous times. There is going to be disunity and conflict as long as there is no true Successor of Saint Peter to serve as the principle of unity to guide us.

We must, however, put aside all respect for persons, no matter how much we like them when the positions that they have taken have been shown to be false and/or when they have demonstrated themselves unworthy of the trust we may have given them, whether because of abuse of the sheep or having given the appearance of scandal and then relying upon others to call black white and to shoot whichever messenger does not believe their loud, vile and sometimes profane protestations that black is indeed white. Truth must take us where it will no matter the consequences as we remember that everything gets revealed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day. We must suffer all until then as suffering for truth is its own reward if we persevere with the help of the graces sent to us by Our Lady until the moment we draw our last breath.

We cannot, therefore, engage in kind of false idolatry of a person, no matter how well one knew him or how personally prayerful, whose positions are contrary to Catholic doctrine even though those positions may have been taken and defended in perfectly good faith. We do, after all, live in very confusing times. It is still nevertheless the case that the emotionally-laden defense of those who we know and like or a position that makes us "comfortable" is nothing other than a variation of a mother who in days gone by might seek to defend her child with a loud and strenuous "My child would never do anything like that" when he had been disciplined by a teacher for misconduct. We do not have the luxury of emotionalism when assessing error or misconduct. All such must be laid aside in a dispassionate effort to cling to the truth and nothing else.

There does come a time, therefore, when we are supposed to recognize that the spotless Mystical Bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, cannot be responsible for doctrines that are unclear, ambiguous or in any way contradictory of that which she has declared time and time again without even a shadow of change. God cannot contradict Himself.  This is a point that has been made many times on this site. A comprehensive refutation of the anti-sedevacantist argument was made by a Catholic writer who writes under the pseudonym Gregorius. Those who are unfamiliar with The Chair is Still Empty should read with care the proof brought forth by "Gregorius" to refute the anti-sedevacantist position once and for all.

Although it had been my intention to compose a series of rhetorical questions for Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, I decided against doing so as it would be a thoroughly redundant and utterly pointless exercise. I have restated the facts about the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism repeatedly, doing so in the specific context of what appeared to be an imminent "reconciliation" between the Society of Saint Pius X and and spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (see (Just About To Complete A Long March Into Oblivion,Trying to Stop the Waltz, "Yer Durn Tootin'" , False Doctrine, Father Pfluger?, Mutual Admiration Societies, part two, Uncrossed Ts and Undotted Is?,  Oyster Bay Cove On Steroids, Oyster Bay Cove On Steroids, part two, Monkey Wrenches, Way, Way Over The Rainbow, Clash Of The Conciliar Titans, Admit Bearer Only After Denying The Catholic Faith and Compromise With Error Must End In Disaster.) Time will tell if I will wind up as a "monkey's uncle" for predicting confidently that a "reconciliation" would take place at some point later this year.

I would, though, like to answer a question posed rhetorically by Bishop Fellay in a recent interview when he said that he did not know why Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was seeking a "reconciliation" with the Society of Saint Pius X. The answer, Your Excellency, is quite simple. I have laid it out in a number of the above-linked articles. I will repeat it again in the hope that one of the readers of this site will forward the answer, which comes from Ratzinger/Benedict himself, to him:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecuмenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

 

It's there in black and white, Bishop Fellay. Read it for yourself and wonder no more.