Quote

Why would Mallerais say he did sign if he did not?

The same question could be asked about ABL. Why would he say he did not sign if he did?

Perhaps he thought his faithful would be scandalized and think less of him.

heck 10 yrs ago, I was a Republican and neocon, sadly to admit..

 :shocked: :scared2:

Oh Belloc, tell me it isn't so!!!!!

Quote

The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact.

The real problem is the society substituting its opinions and wishful thinking for the facts.

Wessex's post was excellent and should be a reason for society chapel goers to reflect.  The thing that can ruin the SSPX is blind obedience.

And if this question is decisive for you, then follow your conscience and jump ship.  Again, what purpose does it serve to determine whether ABL signed these docuмents?  Does it change anything?  But if this is anything like your conjectures on other matters, it seems that irrelevant facts of history are of extreme and defining importance in your mind.  So again I ask, reflect on WHAT precisely and WHY should it matter?  Your last sentence is incoherent: obedience to WHAT?  Who is issuing a command that we sin by excess in following?  

I'm beginning to question your sincerity.  What was that about plants again?        

Quote from: Wessex

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.

The obfuscation resides soley with you and those who think this has any relevance.  My entire point is: so what?  What does a signature have to do with anything other than the imaginary premise that it means irrevocable assent?  This "fact" exists in your imagination.  It has nothing to do with my "comfort" because it is irrelevant.  This comes down to the hidden assumptions on the part of those who hold this out as somehow signficant.  

And another thing.  TIA infers from mere chronology that ABL could not be that important, referring to other heroes that came before.  That is also irrelevant and illogical.  One looks at the quality, stability and fecundity of the work, not who came first.  The Vietnamese bishop was unstable, unpredicatable and his work came to naught but confusion and division, but hey, he came first so he must detract from ABL's greatness!  ABL's work clearly carries with it a divine quality and this has significance within the Church.  TIA (or the lady writing the opinion piece) is blind to this fact, like so many others.  

And for those offended by referring to the names or persons of founders, then I suggest you all start a movement attempting to abolish using the names of Francis, Dominic, etc.  

     

Well, saintly founders of movements in our own time have been caught with their pants down. But signatures on docuмents of such great import have to mean something together with the presence of qualified witnesses and aides. It has to mean a settled attitude of mind existing at that time after much deliberation and a final willingness to solidify a decision. Otherwise people could be accused of being rather reckless with their pen and ink.

If the contributions of Archbishop Thuc and others to the traditional movement are to be disparaged, it is only fair to cast the magnifying glass over Archbishop Lefebvre lest his divinity be mistaken for the second coming.

Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre



Why would Mallerais say he did sign if he did not? The fact is that many choose to remain blind to what really happened and nothing can ever change their minds. There was a way to act and that was the way St. Athanatius would have done. To have nothing to do with any of it. Which is was so many true sons of the Church did.

According to all credible reports, the official docuмents do show that Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the Vatican II decrees.  On the other hand, Archbishop Lefebvre truly believed that he did not sign (at least) two decrees and I've read his own accounts that John Paul II also believed he did not sign (at least) the declaration on religious liberty.

How can we account for the discrepancy?  Based on numerous second and third hand accounts, it appears that there was, at times, confusion over signature lists and whether particular lists were simply "sign-in" rosters or if they were the rosters giving assent to decrees or if signature lists may have been intentionally or unintentionally attached to the wrong docuмents (especially since the clerks probably assumed the bishops present would all have signed the decrees).  

Given the fact that there was clearly much confusion in the administration of the Council, confusion that was, I think, deliberately created by the enemies of the Church (i.e., Modernist bishops, cardinals, and periti), I believe one must give Archbishop Lefebvre the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not he truly intended to sign all of the Council decrees.

Please note that on another topic the question was raised whether or not we should give the "benefit of the doubt" to Benedict XVI and I had answered in the negative.  One should note the profound differences in these two cases.  In the case of Benedict, he has publicly propounded heresy from his early years and maintained those heresies to the present going so far as to have his heretical catechism re-published the year before his election and continuing to keep it in print even to the present day.  Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand, evidently signed heretical docuмents in fact, but denied do so from the earliest record until his dieing day.  This, I think, is the proper way to give one the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.

I think it is too late for that.

Alexandria, tell Wessex  NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote

Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.

I think it is too late for that.

Alexandria, tell Wessex  NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)

Belloc, I must disagree with you, that is not true.  What I have tried to do here, unsuccessfully, is to make others see that we are all guilty of the same things we accuse others of.   Such are the times in which we live.

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote

Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.

I think it is too late for that.

Alexandria, tell Wessex  NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)

I am not sure what a 'Sede circle'  would look like here in the UK. If you mean Catholics not in communion or 'partial-communion' with Newchurch, two names that come to mind are the valient Father Oswald Baker and Father Morgan's (SSPX Superior) dad, both now deceased. There may be a few living ones 'in the closet', notably Bp. Williamson. We do not have such a variety of traditionalist expression to be able to muster distinctive factions of any size. Instead, we observe the goings-on across the oceans with interest and some detachment (in true British style) and see the rise and fall of heroes and movements with greater dispassion. But my personal experience is that the Church has almost disappeared. You may become the last Catholic!

One thing that I think troubles some trads so much about sedevacantism is that they have this fear that both ABL and Bp. Mayer were disposed to it to a great extent ....... maybe they fear it within themselves, God forbid! Therefore, such a lot of mileage goes into over-compensation. But if nothing else the passage of time will decide that the only alternative to the Second Reformation (aka Newchurch) can be sedevacantism. Any negotiation will only confirm this reformation.