Which is a betrayal of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre.
You keep repeating this calumny ad nauseum, but fail to demonstrate how precisely this "betrayal" has come about. Would you care to show us how one could remain "faithful" to the "principles" of ABL? Would you care to tell us how a "doctrinal resolution" will be effected? Do the "principles" of ABL delve into such detail? Where might I find these principles laid out; your former (single!) citation was a bit ambiguous. If you intend to carry on like this, at least be a little more specific. What would such a resolution look like on a practical level? What would happen after that? Which doctrines must be resolved in order for the SSPX to even speak with the Pope?
Do you even comprehend the notion of the greater common good of the Church? It seems your entire frame of reference for supporting the SSPX is their relations with Rome as if this had anything to do with the Faith as it is preserved at your chapel. Do you now expect Catholics to go beyond the faith and determine their course of action based upon the presence or absence of legal recognition? That they must hand-wring and conjecture about events that have yet to take place all the while pretending that said events will determine where one goes to Mass? I think it's safe to say that such a notion is certainly foreign to the "principles" of ABL. This is merely your opinion my friend and a very ill-formed one at that. If you think so little of the SSPX and its priests, why don't you find another place to go? Of course, your direction will not be based on anything remotely relating to the Faith, but rather whether your opinion is satisfied regarding issues that shouldn't even concern you.
If the day comes when the SSPX priests start perverting the faith, at your chapel, then you will have to find another place to go, until then you are simply flirting with a Protestant mentality of the Church.
Caminus-
You are a very tiring person to deal with.
I will probably have to put you on "ignore" after this response.
Here are your answers.
1) For a run down of ABL's post-1988 principle of "no discussion of a practical solution before the doctrinal issues are resolved," please see all the previous posts I supplied quoting him saying same;
2) How does one stay loyal to the principles of ABL?
Answer: Break off any discussions pertaining to a practical solution until the doctrinal issues are resolved in Rome (i.e., Until they come back to the Faith). Pretty difficult to understand, eh?
3) How will a doctrinal resolution be effected?
Answer: Rome will come back to the Faith of our Fathers through an interior conversion by the grace of God.
4) Do the principles of ABL delve into such detail? Answer: ABL stated many times that when Rome came back to the Faith, we would be right there waiting for them.
5) Where might I find this principle laid out?
Answer: You could start with the quote I provided. You could then email Bishop WIlliamson (which would lead to a quite humorous conversation, I think: Trying to convince him that ABL never held this principle -lol).
6) What would such a resolution look like on the practical level?
Answer: Beside the point. We are talking about ABL's principle of "no practical solution before the doctrinal issues are resolved. What happens after that is matter for a separate discussion.
7) Which doctrinal issues must be resolved before the SSPX would talk to Rome about a practical solution?
Answer: A good start would be those covered in the 2 years of discussions, which made no headway. Why throw more issues onto the fire, when they can't even accept those most basic contradictions put before them by the SSPX? But presuming those were settled (i.e., Rome converted and accepted the traditional teaching in these matters), we could move on to all the other issues.
8) Do you comprehand the notion of the greater common good of the Cahtolic Church?
Answer: Yes, but you do not. If you did, you would not oppose the principle of ABL, which was designed to restore sanity to the entire Church, versus your preference, which at best would normalize things for trads in a new trad ghetto.
9) It seems your entire frame of reference for supporting the SSPX is based on their relations with Rome...
Answer: Yes. Because the SSPX has held onto the truth by rejecting the teachings of modernist Rome. They have managed to do this by retaining independance from them. This independance is tp persist until Rome converts, at which time doctrinal negotiations will not be necessary.
10) ...as if this has anything to do with preserving the Faith at the SSPX chapel. Answer: Try telling this to Campos. It also ignores the greater good of restoring sanity to the universal church in favor of normalcy only for the trad ghetto (i.e., a lack of charity).
11) Do you now expect Catholics to go beyond the faith and determine their course of action based upon the presence or absence of legal recognition? Answer: Leaving aside the hint of legalism implicit in this question (i.e., You would have Catholics put their Faith in danger because of legal norms, which themselves are implemented to preserve, rather than destroy, the Faith), the course of action is determined by Catholic moral theology, not whim. Catholics are not permitted to endanger their Faith, and certainly not because of a legalistic, Pharisaical notion of being trapped by canon law into doing so. SO long as a state of necessity exists, Catholics are compelled to seek their spiritual goods from clergy who will not put these goods in danger. Once again, we come to a stunning ignorance of the doctrine of necessity (more rampant on this particular website than any others currently up in the trad world, probably because of the high sede population; they don't want to acknowledge it because it destroys their position; conservatives like you don't want to acknowledge it because it destroys your papolatry and legalism stemming from same).
12) That they must hand-wring and conjecture about events that have yet to take place all the while pretending that said events will determine where one goes to Mass?
Answer: The blame for this is on Bishop Fellay for keeping his intentions and negotiations secret, not on ABL for laying out a very prudent principle.
13) I think it's safe to say that such a notion is certainly foreign to the "principles" of ABL.
Answer: Only you could find the principle of ABL foreign to the principle of ABL.
14) This is merely your opinion my friend and a very ill-formed one at that. Answer: Yes, and that of the SSPX for the last 24 years....uh, oh yeah, and that of ABL (in the citation you are trying to practice CRIMETHINK to avoid).
15) If you think so little of the SSPX and its priests, why don't you find another place to go?
Answer: Uh, OK, if we are going to start making stuff up, then I will ask you to please convert from Buddhism.
16) Of course, your direction will not be based on anything remotely relating to the Faith, but rather whether your opinion is satisfied regarding issues that shouldn't even concern you.
Answer: It is interesting to note your opinion that the outcome of negotiations between Rome and the SSPX do not concern the laity; you would have a hard time convincing any SSPXer I know of that.
17) If the day comes when the SSPX priests start perverting the faith,
at your chapel, then you will have to find another place to go, until then you are simply flirting with a Protestant mentality of the Church.
Answer: First half of statement is correct; second half of statement is typical conservative party line.
Topic: SSPX: A Spectacular Reading from the Pulpit (Read 3366 times)