Bishop Fellay has stated, in every public comment on this, that the SSPX cannot consider a "canonical" settlement prior to a doctrinal solution.  He has also stated that a doctrinal solution means the conversion of "rome."

Bishop Fellay has stated, repeatedly, that the nature of the discussions was in fact the SSPX witnessing to the faith in Rome and explaining how Vatican II contradicts it, and therefore Vatican II cannot be accepted.

Bishop Fellay has stated that the doctrinal discussions did not achieve anything except to make the SSPX's views clear to "rome" and the latter's views clear to the SSPX.

Bishop Fellay has stated that the Preamble is unacceptable, and also that it was disappointing that "rome" would put forth such a docuмent in the circuмstances, knowing that the doctrinal discussions achieved no shift on the part of "rome."

Bishop Fellay also said that the SSPX will prepare an appropriate response which he fully expects will be rejected by "rome" and he warns the faithful for a serious deterioration of relations with "rome" - accusations of "schism" etc.

None of the allegations against Bishop Fellay have any substance, any evidence.  They're all just tendentious presentations of circuмstances designed to create suspicion.  Examine them and see what you can find.  I certainly can't find any substance in them.

Take the story of the Albano meeting.  What is the factual data?  Bishop Fellay read the Preamble to the assembled clergy.  They said it was unacceptable.  He said he will write a docuмent expressing that, and expressing the SSPX's stance, which almost certainly not be accepted.  That's it.

From that data we have these fairy-tales that he tried to "sell" the Preamble to the clergy.  I see no data to support that.  It is not warranted from the evidence.  

What else could he have done?  Well, he could have rejected the Preamble without consultation.  Or he could have told the assembled clergy at Albano that he thought it should be rejected, but here it is anyway.  Instead, he let them make their own judgement with no comment from himself.  Given that he thinks that Benedict is the Roman Pontiff, and that he has been accused of ignoring the wishes of the SSPX clergy and faithful, what would be better than the course he took?  Yet even that becomes reason for some to accuse him of ill-will.

You see how easy it is to think well of Bishop Fellay based upon the known data?  And that's our obligation.  If you are worried that thinking this way might get egg on your face later, just remember what St. Thomas says about that, and think "I'd rather have egg on my face than a stain on my soul."  You'll only have egg on your face in the judgement of men without Christian formation anyway.

A good act is never lost, say the saints.  Behave in accord with Christian moral doctrine and let the chips fall where they may.  This is true liberty.

Gertrude-

   Being a lover of truth, I always weigh my adversary's arguments, not wanting for the sake of pride to dig my heels in where I ought not.

   And I have to admit, your argumentation carries a certain force with it.

   Specifically, the part about nobody being able to cite the veracity of the incidents in Germany and France.

   Unless someone interjects to bolster that side of the argument, I am on the verge of retracting my position in this matter.

   Anyone?

A good act is never lost, say the saints.  Behave in accord with Christian moral doctrine and let the chips fall where they may.  This is true liberty.

Hear, hear!   :cheers:

So no one knows the answer to the question Sigismund and I asked?

Quote from: Santo Subito

How can one possibly claim Paul VI was a true Pope of the Church and yet the Council docuмents he signed and promulgated by majority vote of the world's bishops was NOT an act of the Church? That makes no sense. It seems schizophrenic to me.

So you're saying to either accept Vatican II or to become a sedevacantist, because the SSPX position is in-consistent? This is what you're saying, right?

Not necessarily, because I'm not convinced this opinion of BW is the official position of the Society. BW's opinions seem to lay the foundation for sedevacantism, though he never draws the conclusion. I truly do not understand how an individual Catholic judge that this and that particular act were not acts of the Church but of men. The visible Church is comprised of men and the acts of those men, in their official capacity, are acts of the Church. Otherwise what is to keep someone from questioning whether any Pre-VCII act was "an act of the Church"?

Quote from: Santo Subito

Not necessarily, because I'm not convinced this opinion of BW is the official position of the Society. BW's opinions seem to lay the foundation for sedevacantism, though he never draws the conclusion.

He's as far from sedevacantism as anybody.  There's no human chance that he will become a sede.

His doctrine is Archbishop Lefebvre's principles, but drawn out to add Bishop W's own conclusion which he thinks follows from those principles - viz. that Benedict is the visible head of two organisations, the Church and the anti-church.

Your criticism of his doctrine is actually directed at Archbishop Lefebvre's principles.

I don't recall ABL ever say that VCII was not an act of the Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre said repeatedly that it is odious to credit the Catholic Church with the words of Dignitatis humanae.

That's just one example.