Quote

Once you untwist things, you realize that ABL and +Fellay that are like two peas in a pod.

This is absolute garbage.

This whole issue is has the modernists accomplishing what they set out to do - divide and conquer.

+Williamson, whether one agrees with his method of bringing certain articles to the table or not, makes valid points which, far as I see, are not met with answers from the one(s) he accuses. On the contrary, thus far, he is up against the exact same  - I mean the *exact* same tactic used against +ABL and all trads back when the NO was not yet even a few years old - namely:
1) Silence
2) Ignore
3) Expel

Has +Fellay made any public answers that directly address the accusations of +Williamson? Not yet far as I know - someone please correct me if I am wrong here. There is nothing wrong with asking yourself - Why is +Fellay silent, why does he ignore these serious accusations and why are some of the priests starting to leave and be expelled?

The tactic on the part of +Fellay bears a horrific resemblance to the modernists of the 60s and 70s when they repeatedly completely ignored the protestations of all who condemned the NO and wanted to remain faithful to the true faith and Mass.

If the modernists did not ignore, then they expelled good priests, nuns, lay teachers, etc. often under some slanderous and false accusation - or, expelled them for no reason at all.

+Fellay needs to end his silence and answer directly the serious and valid accusations his fellow bishop(s) and priests are making against him - simple as that. Until then, this bit of history is playing out in the exact same manner as it did 50 years ago - the only difference is that now, it is no longer modernists vs traditionlists, now the *only*  players are SSPXers themselves.
 
 

I didn't say that the quote was apocryphal.

 I said that ABL said it in May 1987, and then went on to negotiate with Rome for the best part of another year.  

It therefore cannot very well be used as evidence that what he said meant that the Society should not have dealings with Rome

Quote

"The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. Today's church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of always. The norm of Catholic Faith is Tradition. For our part we persevere in the Catholic Church." -Archbishop LeFebvre

Sorry accordistas, but I think this destroys your argument.

I know that McFarland's excuse is that +ABL is dead, but no honest person can weasle their way out of this.

That was perfectly clear and it clearly shows their state of mind. For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.

Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome has to testify a little bit of loyalty.
You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have. (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).

The attempt to paint the Archbishop as some sort of figure longing to be approved by Modernist Rome is beyond the pale. Historically this is false. Not only does it attempt to make the 1974 Declaration and the 1976 Declaration into some sort of oddity, but its attempt to make the 1988 Protocol into the norm is not even logical.

The first question must be: Why was there a 1974 Declaration in the first place? Because of the visitors sent by the Holy See to investigate Econe. They were modernists who had to be answered by a Declaration of Faith so as to show opposition to the Vatican II "Rome", the occupied Rome of neo-Modernist and Protestant tendencies. This declaration was not received well by the modernists. It offended all the types like yourself who were yearning for peace with Rome. The Archbishop totally ignored the suppression of the Society, and defied the direct actions of the Holy See who threatened the Suspension in 1976. Rome was willing to give in and fix everything if only the Archbishop would only say one time the New Rite. He refused, and proceeded. That ended things for awhile. Then came the announcement in 1987 that the Archbishop intended to consecrate. Rome tried to avert the Operation Survival for Tradition. Cardinal Ratzinger himself was at the head of the movement to stop the Archbishop. I heard Fr. Bisig in his own words tell a group of us priests that the Archbishop in fact did not want any negotiations with Rome. Your attempt to paint him as the man yearning for such approval is contrary to the facts. Fr. Bisig was there, and he was the one whom Pope John-Paul II made Superior General of the FSSP instead. He was not confused as to the facts. He told us that it was the priests around the Archbishop who wanted a deal, not the Archbishop.* He finally gave in to them. The night of the signing of the Protocol bears Fr. Bisig out. He realized that to make such an agreement was wrong, that this new Rome could not be trusted, period. He says so himself. After that, he is absolutely against any agreement with Rome, and in fact, in his last book, "Spiritual Journey" makes this very strong statement:

"It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith."

It is not a better thing to do, but a strict duty. Has the Conciliar Church returned to Tradition? No, unless you think that congratulatory letters to Buddhists is traditional, to name the latest outrage. You had better look hard for any writing of the Archbishop after the consecrations to discover this supposed true spirit of the Archbishop that you have conjured.

...I do not know why you do not simply join the ranks of the FSSP since your arguments are basically theirs. The 1990 Conference of the Archbishop at Econe reminds the priests, however, that such a position involving shaking hands with those who were destroying Tradition was absolutely unacceptable. It meant treason ultimately to Our Lord.

Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome has to testify a little bit of loyalty.
You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have.

This whole issue is has the modernists accomplishing what they set out to do - divide and conquer.

+Williamson, whether one agrees with his method of bringing certain articles to the table or not, makes valid points which, far as I see, are not met with answers from the one(s) he accuses. On the contrary, thus far, he is up against the exact same  - I mean the *exact* same tactic used against +ABL and all trads back when the NO was not yet even a few years old - namely:
1) Silence
2) Ignore
3) Expel

Has +Fellay made any public answers that directly address the accusations of +Williamson? Not yet far as I know - someone please correct me if I am wrong here. There is nothing wrong with asking yourself - Why is +Fellay silent, why does he ignore these serious accusations and why are some of the priests starting to leave and be expelled?

The tactic on the part of +Fellay bears a horrific resemblance to the modernists of the 60s and 70s when they repeatedly completely ignored the protestations of all who condemned the NO and wanted to remain faithful to the true faith and Mass.

If the modernists did not ignore, then they expelled good priests, nuns, lay teachers, etc. often under some slanderous and false accusation - or, expelled them for no reason at all.

+Fellay needs to end his silence and answer directly the serious and valid accusations his fellow bishop(s) and priests are making against him - simple as that. Until then, this bit of history is playing out in the exact same manner as it did 50 years ago - the only difference is that now, it is no longer modernists vs traditionlists, now the *only*  players are SSPXers themselves.
 
 

...Has +Fellay made any public answers that directly address the accusations of +Williamson? Not yet far as I know - someone please correct me if I am wrong here...

Quote from: Ethelred

Why is this McFarland still here on Cathinfo and staining the truth, the resistance priests and the last resistance bishop? Is this sellout troll enjoying the privilege of fools here? But why?

Yes, it's quite unacceptable for him to be accusing people here of putting up apocryphal quotes.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

Archbishop Lefebvre never went along with any deal.