I honestly looked around on this. And, all I kept coming up with were articles that he DID sign them. Then when I saw this one I knew it was what I was looking for. The article from Tradition in Action is a very nice article not hostile. However, it points out the truth. We are all called to be Athanasius and this did not happen.

For pity sake. The whole article from TIA was on whether or not he signed all of the docuмents. Their point was when faced with the choice of signing papers he thought held heresies he did sign them. You act as though I wrote the article which of course I did not.
But, the truth is that each and everyone of us will be called to make a stand. To stand against heresy and they referred to Athanasius in this article, but it could just as easily have read St. John Fisher. And, when push came to shove HE SIGNED. Remember as is pointed out quite frequently here I am a sede so I do not think that Archbishop Lefebvre ever was the Bishop predicted to restore the Church. I do not think he ever was period and now he has been dead all of these years there is proof enough of that.
It has been mentioned on this board that if not for Lefebvre there would be no Tradition, no Latin Mass which is positively absurd. The record speaks for itself. There were many who never ever compromised no matter what and it is because of those men we have the True Mass of Pope St. Pius V and not just the compromise Mass of  1962.

More brilliant logic from the folks at TIA.  One wonders if their bodies are made of wood too or if it's just their reasoning ability.  Taking advantage of historical perspective is most disingenuous.  ABL was part of a Catholic Ecuмenical Council, how could he not maintain such a deference in the beginning, even if some of the statements in these docuмents appeared suspect?  He was a faithful Roman Bishop, the benefit of the doubt was certainly present in the great historical moment of sitting in Council.  The great work of the past 20 Councils surely informed this instinctive attitude.  Why should this one be any different?  Such an enormous event takes time to sink into the mind, Dawn's preternatural gifts aside.  Given the fact that the Fathers continually broke the rules of the Council, I would not be surprised in the least if through confusion of proceedings, he signed a docuмent that ended up being the final work.  The presence of his signature doesn't negate his internal reservations.  Only after seeing the matter after mature deliberation, did he draw out all the consequences.  

But of course, no great man of the Church, no saintly Bishop or Doctor ever made a mistake, they never erred in a slight prudential matter or in a question of fact, they were never deceived or trusted the wrong person even momentarily.  No, that'ts not possible according to the logic of TIA.  Yes, like a bird of prey, they circle until an opportunity is presented to descend in attack, impugning the character of a man who they could only hope to imitate.  Next they should go after St. Cyril and his weak affirmations of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost in the heat of controversy.  Or St. Thomas in his struggle with the Immaculate Conception.  Or St. Jerome in his pelagian sounding writings.  They've already done quite a number on John Henry Newman, and I'm sad to say that there was involved not a few mortal sins in that campaign of ignorance.  Any joker with a website becomes an authority these days.  Who cares what "TIA" some lady with a computer thinks?  But now we have to clean up endless messes because of such a lack of discretion spread by the blessings of modern technology.            

Is it better to go after the truth or to obfuscate? We live in an age of false images, manipulation and trickery. So much of this is part of ordinary daily thinking and practice to the point of become a person's second nature. Add to this a higher level of erudite interpretation and fuzzy logic intended to muddy the water further and we say goodbye to truth once and for all in order to maintain a glossy reputation, cold partisanship and a conceited feeling of well-being.

Is it better to go after the truth or to obfuscate? We live in an age of false images, manipulation and trickery. So much of this is part of ordinary daily thinking and practice to the point of become a person's second nature. Add to this a higher level of erudite interpretation and fuzzy logic intended to muddy the water further and we say goodbye to truth once and for all in order to maintain a glossy reputation, cold partisanship and a conceited feeling of well-being.

Most people are no longer interested in either facts or the truth as that would necessitate them rethinking their conclusions.  And I am not just referring to the SSPX, lest anyone get the wrong idea.

Most people are no longer interested in either facts or the truth as that would necessitate them rethinking their conclusions.

Well said.  The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact.  This involves a great deal of self-reflection.  Many seem to think that the demise of Catholicism will come about when they must relinquish their opinions.  

Quote

Most people are no longer interested in either facts or the truth as that would necessitate them rethinking their conclusions.

Well said.  The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact.  This involves a great deal of self-reflection.  Many seem to think that the demise of Catholicism will come about when they must relinquish their opinions.

Caminus, another red letter day for me!  I agree.  :cool:

I guess my first step would be to contact Fr. Peter Scott.

If my memory serves me correctly, I think this has already been done.