Author Topic: A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX - 18 December 2013 (Read 22828 times)

peterp · « **Reply #75 on:** January 13, 2014, 02:03:20 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.

Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #76 on:** January 13, 2014, 03:06:54 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: petwerp
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

So, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with Rome, he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until his death:

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.

Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13.

The reader will recognize, of course, that this quote attributed to me, above, is not my words at all, but those of Anonymous, on page 2 of the Open Letter, which see.

And it is followed immediately by "the second quote" also at the bottom of p.2:

Quote from: Anonymous

So, after Archbishop Lefebvre realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with Rome he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until his death:

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.
Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13.

Here is another way Archbishop Lefebvre formulated the same principle:

[W]e prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition
while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while
waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman
authorities, in their minds. This will last for as long as the
Good Lord has foreseen.
Episcopal consecration sermon, 1988.

ABL is speaking clearly here, and his words require no amplification. The message is obvious for anyone with ears to hear. The fact that there may always be miserable deniers (like petwerp, here) who attempt to miserably deny the obvious, does not take away from the obvious clarity of his words.

The principle at work here is that merely miserable malignity does not refute obvious truth. The truth stands on its own, regardless of calumny against it.

And the miserable calumny that THAT is "not a principle" does not make it so.

Quote

Quote from: pp

i) The context of this quote is resisting the reforms introduced by Vatican II. It makes no mention of refusing any agreement with Rome (and neither does the second quote for that matter). Hence they do not support the false claim of "no agreement with unconverted Rome".

No, it's not a "false claim," it is a true and accurate statement of historical fact. And any repeated, miserably malignant attempt to deny the obvious doesn't change the reality.

Quote

Quote
ii) The "which he maintained until his death" is an argument from silence fallacy. The archbishop had already acknowledged there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years after the consecrations.

No, it's not "an argument from silence fallacy." ABL repeated this principle many times, even if liars like petwerp would keep trying to rewrite history. The principle that he held openly until his death was No Agreement with Unconverted Rome.

So get used to it, petwerp. It's not going away, just because you in your twisted illusionary fantasy would like it to go away.

Quote

Quote
iii) The quote is not a principle. The principle here is wanting to remain Catholic. The separate himself from this Conciliar Church is the prudent action. Which just goes to show the author(s) can't distinguish between the two.

No, the principle is not "wanting to remain Catholic." ABL had no doubts about his being Catholic. His announcement was that the Conciliar church had failed to remain Catholic. The Roman authorities are no longer Catholic. They have lost the Faith, it is certain; it is certain; it is certain.

What, repeating it three times isn't clear enough? Should he have repeated it FOUR times? Would that have been convincing for you?

Probably not.

Quote from: J.Paul

You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.

Dear J.Paul, petwerp might remember or he might not remember, but that's immaterial, because he's going to A) either pretend he doesn't remember or that he is incapable of remembering, or B) he's going to see the quotes and proceed to deny that they say what they obviously say.

So there isn't any point in trying to convince one with such a HARDENED heart. It's a waste of your effort, but I appreciate your effort nonetheless, because I know you mean well, and that's commendable.

The quotes to which you refer are found on page 8 of the Open Letter, which I quoted early on in this thread, but there was no discussion. It is to be noted that at the time, petwerp had no comment in their regard, and we can therefore expect full well that petwerp will have no comment now, either, except perhaps to miserably malign the words and/or attempt to claim that they do not say what they obviously say:

From Post
Page 8

Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake in Signing the May 1988 Protocol, And from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle: No Agreement With Unconverted Rome.

Showing he learned his lesson, Archbishop Lefebvre maintained until his death that he would not even discuss an agreement with Rome until Rome converted. Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly showed his resolution not to do what Bishop Fellay seeks and has sought. When asked by Fideliter magazine, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of a dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:

We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back
to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.
We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of the deaf. I can’t
speak much of the future, mine is behind me; but if I live
a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue,
then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in
the position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue.
No more.

I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. ‘Do you
agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded
you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale
Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas
Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in
full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do
you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in
favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'

If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors,
it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the
correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of
these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.

Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Vatican, pp.223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added).

So, if Bishop Fellay was following Archbishop Lefebvre, he would treat seriously Rome’s request to talk but he would keep the discussion at the doctrinal level, as Archbishop Lefebvre vowed he would, after his May 1988 mistake. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the principle that “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.”

Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13 (emphasis added).

That is, Archbishop Lefebvre declared any good priest must not make a deal with Rome until Rome rediscovers the Tradition of the Church.

[END OF EXCERPT from page 8]

The conspicuous deceit the Fellayites try to use in their attempt to show that something else ABL said at some point is all that is needed to refute these prominent testaments is proof of their liberalism, because that is the liberal character in action: look for some manner of inconsistency or exception, however vague or small, and latch on to that because their bent is to make the exception into the new rule.

It's like a willful child at the supermarket: You can say, "No, you can't have any candy," every time you wheel them through the store, and you can do it for YEARS, but the ONE TIME that you break down and let them pick out one candy item is the time that becomes the new rule in their mind, and you'll hear ALL ABOUT IT forevermore, until they grow up and move out.

Liberals, e.g., petwerp, are like big babies that never grew up.

Quote from: J.Paul

Were they to acknowledge these magisterial teachings then Vatican II would have been a dead issue.

And by the way, [their] acceptance of these doctrinal pronouncements is absolutely required if [anyone] is to remain Catholic, so as they ~~did~~ would [not] acknowledge these doctrines, he was negotiating with an objectively non-Catholic entity.

While ABL had fallen into the Conciliar trap of attempting to negotiate with non-Catholic Modernists, he later recognized his mistake, and from then on, for the rest of his life, he held to his conviction: no negotiations with unconverted Rome.

I explained this to a child, and he understood it. In fact, I was amused to see that later he had no more interest in it, and wanted to MOVE ON to new material. This gives me a lot of reassurance, because the Liberal penchant to dwell on an impossible point, such as their DENIAL that ABL held this principle firmly to the end of his life, is proof of their dishonesty.

They know that once this principle is acknowledged for the truth that it is, the game is over.

So they deny that it's a principle,

Or they say it isn't true,

Or they say it never happened,

Or they try to accuse you of getting it all wrong,

Or they cry and moan that you are abusing them or hurting their feelings.

It all reminds us of what the devil does during exorcisms. He has a litany of silly puerile stunts to attempt to sway the exorcist away from his efforts to expel him. And the devil doesn't give up easily. Not infrequently, people who act this way are themselves possessed, which could easily be the case with many lawyers.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #77 on:** January 13, 2014, 03:52:46 PM »

.

>>> What we had was ABL teaching that any future discussion with the Roman authorities would have to be predicated upon two things:

A) Rome would have to first return to Catholic Tradition BEFORE any discussions could take place, and

B) In order to prove that Rome had so returned to Catholic Tradition, ABL would "put conditions" and would "put the discussion at the doctrinal level" by asking if Rome agrees with the doctrine of her predecessors:

Quanta Cura of Pius IX,
Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII,
Pascendi Gregis of Pius X,
Quas Primas of Pius XI,
Humani Generis of Pius XII?

Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath?
Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'

((Those are doctrinal matters. In regards to liturgy, he would say, "Quo Primum of Pius V."))

>>> But what we have instead, today, only 23 years later, is XSPXSGBF acting as ABL's successor, engaging in "DOCTRINAL NEGOTIATIONS" with modernist, unconverted Rome, the OPPOSITE of what ABL would have him do, without ever asking the questions that ABL vowed he would have him ask,

"Do You Agree With the Doctrine of Your Predecessors?!?!"

If they do not agree, then no dialogue is possible. It is a dialogue of the deaf.

You know, like J.Paul trying to dialogue with petwerp.

As we have shown several times already:

When asked by Fideliter magazine, “What do you think of a possible re-opening of a dialogue with Rome?” Archbishop Lefebvre made the following clear reply:

We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back
to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.
We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of the deaf. I can’t
speak much of the future, mine is behind me; but if I live
a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue,
then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in
the position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue.
No more.

I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. ‘Do you
agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded
you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale
Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas
Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in
full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do
you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in
favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?'

If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors,
it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the
correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of
these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.

Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Vatican, pp.223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added).

So, if Bishop Fellay was following Archbishop Lefebvre, he would treat seriously Rome’s request to talk but he would keep the discussion at the doctrinal level, as Archbishop Lefebvre vowed he would, after his May 1988 mistake. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the principle that:

“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.”

Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p.13 (emphasis added).

Instead, we have XSPXSGBF negotiating with Rome for YEARS and YEARS without asking the critical questions, pretending the discussions are on the doctrinal level but that's a BIG LIE, Communist style. Meanwhile he's running GREC in the background, appointing liberals into capitulary status in the General Chapters, Communist style, expelling good and faithful priests, Communist style, muzzling the weaker priests who dare not exercise any real backbone, Communist style, spreading the errors of Russia throughout the Society by his sneaky, slippery, soft-spoken speeches full of liberal ambiguity and self-contradictions, Communist style, and cranking out politicized half-truths and subtly worded deceptions as if he were following in the footsteps of the progressivists at Vat.II, with his AFD and SARD. All the while, he says the negotiations with Rome are DOCTRINAL but that's a LIE. Because he never asked them the question:

"Do You Agree With the Doctrine of Your Predecessors?!?!"

Instead, he pretends that he asked the question, by calling the talks with Rome "doctrinal negotiations," and thereby he does exactly what ABL said he would never do:

"I shall not accept being put in the position where I
was during the [May 1988] dialogue. No more."

Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop
Lefebvre and the Vatican, pp.223-224

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #78 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:12:27 PM »

.

We are left to surmise that the reason XSPXSGBF doesn't ask Newrome the question, which see, is because XSPXSGBF himself does not agree with his own predecessor, ABL, nor does he accept the doctrine of his predecessors and the predecessors of the Newroman popes.

For if XSPXSGBF does not agree with the doctrine of the Church, it would be entirely useless for him to expect the Newromans to agree with it.

.
.
.

Furthermore, IF SXPXSGBF were not a Communist himself, THEN he WOULD ask the Newomans this essential question, AND since he does not ask the Conciliar Newroman apostates this essential question, well, I'll leave the entry level logic up to you.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #79 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:26:30 PM »

.

After all, ABL never said that the Society Superior General should not be a Communist.

ABL never formally opined that Communist would be a bad thing for the SG to be.

ABL did not warn the Society about the dangers of creeping liberalism within the ranks of the capitulants and especially the Superior General.

In fact, his own SG appointee, Fr. Schmidberger, doesn't quite meet up with any reasonable expectation of what STELLAR NON-COMMUNIST would be all about.

So why should anyone be concerned that XSPXSGBF at least BEHAVES that way?

That is, whether or not he really IS one.

Remember, you don't have to BE a Freemason to have the effect of a Freemason.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #80 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:42:41 PM »

.

In light of all this, is it any wonder that SXPXSGBF could not STAND
the proximity or the likes of +W anywhere associated with the XSPX?
Any openly anti-Communist such as +W could only spell "d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r"
for the REAL agenda of a clandestine non-anti-communist like XSPXSGBF.

Furthermore, you might notice the curious similarity in the other good
priests who are lately expelled or who have resigned from the XSPX,
such as Fr. Fuchs last week --- openly anti-communist................

.
.
.

Kapeesh?

.

JPaul · « **Reply #81 on:** January 13, 2014, 05:25:07 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: J.Paul

save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.

Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"

.

No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to

Wessex · « **Reply #82 on:** January 13, 2014, 05:58:16 PM »

The truth of the matter is Bp. F and his closest advisers desperately want to be mainstream. They hate being locked out of the affairs of the church they now accept and by extension the world. Their biggest task over the last decade or so was to convert an organised hostile response to widespread liberalism into a willing participation in the great debate that conciliarism set in motion. They can officially hang onto their liturgical preferences if their understanding of the reforms is acceptable, so why fight the trend and become permanent pariahs?

By definition, communion with the conciliar church is predicated on having a conciliar outlook. ABL worked in vain if his successors now want to be part of the club. Although I never understood the point of being in partial communion, it should now be clear to everyone what the full embrace would mean. And for its part any genuine resistance means no communion with Rome for a very long time.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #83 on:** January 13, 2014, 06:46:12 PM »

.

As I was saying about Communism and the SSPX: I'm not making this up.

For example,

From +W's Dec. 22 sermon:

...
One recalls the Archbishop saying back in 1975 when he was put in front of a ‘Kangaroo Court’ of three cardinals down in Rome. He said afterwards, “…the

4

soviets would have treated me better”. A terrible thing to say but it’s true. The Latin proverb is, “the corruption of the best is the worst”.

[That would be "Corruptio optimae pessima est."]

When Catholic churchmen go corrupt it’s terrible…terrible…worse than the Jews. The Jews are classic enemies of the Church, not all of them individually of course, and not all of them to the same degree, but they are instinctive liberals as a general rule and instinctively they want to replace Catholic civilisation with Jєωιѕн civilisation which is what is happening all around us. They are the ring leaders of the Anti-Christian movement but they’re not the worst. The worst are those churchmen inside the Catholics, especially the Catholic churchmen, who have been given great grace by God in order to be Catholics and in order to be in addition churchmen. When they go wrong it’s much worse.

...

Our Lord has bitter, bitter -- bitter enemies!

The world is not like "The Sound of Music!" Not everybody’s nice and sweet -- and wonderful -- and well-intentioned -- and handsome and good looking -- and generous and all the rest of it… except the nαzιs, of course!

I mean, even Hollywood has to have some enemy, and the enemies are the nαzιs and Hitler is the devil incarnate.

That is the Jєωιѕн Hollywood version, but it is false; it’s a false version.

Josef Stalin AKA Josef Vissarionovich Dzughashvili. b. 18-Dec-1878, d. 5-Mar-1953 Moscow.

Our Lord has bitter enemies and not only Hitler, nor even the nαzιs. The nαzιs and Hitler may well have been enemies of Our Lord, they certainly weren’t Catholic, but [Josef] Stalin was the cause of many many millions more deaths than Hitler. [Read: murdered many millions more Jews than Hitler.] Our media don’t tell us that because the media is in the hands of the same people who are behind communism – the Jews - by the font [?] of the Catholics.

Therefore, the media cover over the sins of communism and blast all over the walls, paint and splatter everywhere, the sins of the nαzιs -- because the nαzιs

6 [Quiz question: Why do the MSM suppress the sins of the Communists while they broadcast the sins of the nαzιs?]

were standing up to Communism! The nαzιs may have been criminals in various ways, but I don’t know if you know….again, I’m getting into what looks like politics, but behind all politics is religion, and the malice of communism created by the Jews as a false religion.

Pope Pious XI said, “…Communism is the Messianism of materialism”, which is brilliantly said. It’s Messianic materialism.

The Messiah was Jєωιѕн. The Jews were prepared for the Messiah. They were trained for the Messiah. They have so to speak the Messiah in their bloodstream but they rejected Him. Therefore, they create -- they have the inside knowledge of God to create -- false Messianisms, one after another. [The worldwide battle against] brutal Communism was won, but basically Communism was atheistic materialism.

What we now have all around us is globalism which is atheistic materialism. It’s the same thing, only the soft version. The brutal version ran up against a brick wall, it raised too much of a reaction. So a certain Italian Jew, Antonio Gramsci, invented or conceived soft communism which would get around the resistance that there was to hard Communism, and soft communism under the name of globalism is now taking over the world because the Catholics are not Catholic.

That’s basically why.

Catholics are losing the faith. Both from the mainstream church and now one may fear to some extent inside the Society of St. Pius X.

The leadership has lost it’s grip on… both Bishop Fellay and Father Pfluger talk of our ‘New friends in Rome’. Meaning that the churchmen controlling the universal church, and setting this false direction of the universal church are now friends of the leaders of the society. That tells you that the leaders of the society have changed. To consider today’s Roman churchmen as friends? They are not friends of Our Lord – judged by the fruits. Of course the words are all friendly to Our Lord but the actions? No. Therefore, as John the Baptist, the precursor of Our Lord stopped the Jews in their tracks and the Pharisees and those who came… in order to remind them to watch out…

Christmas is a question of sin and virtue and the saving of souls. Watch out, you are completely on the wrong track if you think that you’re religious. You Pharisees think that you’re religious; you think that you’re the chosen ones; you think you are the leaders of the people of God and here you are a bunch of Vipers. John the Baptist said so. John the Baptist was well aware that not everything is sweet and nice, and sure enough! Our Lord is born -- and what happens? Herod sends soldiers down to murder every child in Bethlehem in the hopes of also murdering Our Lord!

7

Our Lord has bitter enemies, don’t be deluded. Don’t think like Hollywood.

Don’t follow Hollywood.

The Bells of Saint Marys…what’s it? The Sound of Music, Going My Way and all of these silly, silly films, which are very false.

I mentioned some good news, Father Pinaud is a good man and he was imprisoned in Austria for eight months and at the end of those eight months he was promised a trial. The trial was set up by two district superiors and a Professor of Econe and at the end he was condemned to not say Mass. He was condemned heavily for slight participation in the resistance of the best briefs of the society to the false correction being taken by Menzingen. Menzingen is a little Swiss village near which is the headquarters of the Society.

Menzingen reacted violently. He couldn’t even say Mass, he couldn’t hear confessions he was absolutely crippled and paralyzed as a priest. Unbelievable!

Absolutely unbelievable!

After the condemnation he was nobly offered the opportunity to appeal and at first he accepted the opportunity to appeal but finally he said, “That’s it, that’s it”, and he’s walking out. He’s quite right, he’s quite bright. He will be able to do much more. What he purchased with his eight or so months in Austria was a demonstration of the absolute injustice, the worse than communist injustice. They made things up as they went along. Unbelievable! The leadership is locked into a dream and it’s a dream of reconciling irreconcilableness.

It’s a dream like Paul VI dreamt of reconciling church and world and the result was Vatican II.

So Menzingen now dreams of reconciling tradition and the conciliar church. It can’t be done. The conciliar church is intrinsically against Our Lord and against God, against man. Catholic tradition, the true tradition is obviously from God, for God, for man but in this dream they lock out, they just shut out anything that contradicts this false vision. This false reconciling irreconcilableness, it’s as though you should try to reconcile Christ and Satan, it’s ridiculous!

Satan is locked into his hatred of God, his absolute profound hatred and defiance of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and in God says St James, there is no shadow or trace of change. God cannot change. Satan can’t change. Christ can’t change. To reconcile the two is ridiculous. The idea of reconciling is ridiculous but that’s the idea that now governs the universal church -- or [else] actually Satan’s taken over the leadership of the universal church. He is now taking over if he has not already taken over the leadership of the Society and that’s why we’re here today.

8

Please pray for Father Pinaud and for Father Pieuvre, they’re good men and when France stirs it’s going to make a lot of difference. Up till now, France has generally not been stirring and a lot of French priests are good but they’ve not seen strongly or clearly enough yet, many of them, to take much action. It’s now stirring – let’s hope.

France of course is a great home of Catholicism and also a great home of liberalism. France is usually out in front for good or for ill. It hasn’t yet been out in front for the resistance but if it gets moving… I think Bishop Fellay realises already that he has a problem in France because there is a lot of silent resistance to what’s going on inside the society, and all that’s needed is for that resistance to come into the open and then Bishop Fellay has a serious problem on his hands. So that is also good news.
...

Good stuff from +W!!!

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #84 on:** January 13, 2014, 07:23:11 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: J.Paul

save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.

Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"

.

No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to

Do you know someone who has been forced into slavery against their will, or is being held as a hostage, and is thus made somehow subservient to the SSPX?

.

JPaul · « **Reply #85 on:** January 13, 2014, 09:02:37 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: J.Paul

save for those who are in thrall to Conciliar SPXism.

Are you trying to say, "for those who are enthralled by Conciliar SPXism?"

.

No I was thinking more along the idea of those who are held in thrall to

Do you know someone who has been forced into slavery against their will, or is being held as a hostage, and is thus made somehow subservient to the SSPX?

.

Not necessarily forced but led to believe in something which in the end is against their own interests. They are intellectually captivated by the belief that the Menzingen/resistance/Conciliar R&R policies of accommodation are safe and non-contradictory.

Unbrandable · « **Reply #86 on:** January 14, 2014, 12:44:22 AM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: J.Paul

You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.

Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!

peterp,

You’ve used the above quote of the Archbishop 4 times now since the beginning of this thread, but you should stop using it. It doesn’t work.

The original French wording that you gave us back on page 6, (and that I checked on the Avec l’Immaculee website), is this:

D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.

But the actual translation is this :

But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, then they would have to make us the offer, and I do not think that they are anywhere near doing so, for what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop.

(It wasn’t translated accurately in the english version of the conference)

which now doesn’t support your claim on page 11 that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the idea of an offer from Rome after 1988.

Quote

In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".

JPaul · « **Reply #87 on:** January 14, 2014, 07:48:22 AM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: J.Paul

You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.

Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!

I am amazed at your blindness. We are talking about whether of not the Romans are even Catholic and you can see nothing else outside of the orbit of the SSPX. If the Archbishop would have made an agreement with this cult while it still rejected Catholic doctrine and Magisterium he would have been entirely wrong and de facto agreeing with their apostasy.

peterp · « **Reply #88 on:** January 14, 2014, 11:59:03 AM »

Quote from: Unbrandable

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: J.Paul

You of course remember his statements which were quite specific that what he really required was their acceptance of the teaching of their predecessors as engendered in specific encyclicals and docuмents which he named.

Yes and none mentioned refusing an agreement with Rome. In fact there is only post 1988 one that talk about an an agreement:

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer!

peterp,

You’ve used the above quote of the Archbishop 4 times now since the beginning of this thread, but you should stop using it. It doesn’t work.

The original French wording that you gave us back on page 6, (and that I checked on the Avec l’Immaculee website), is this:

D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.

But the actual translation is this :

But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, then they would have to make us the offer, and I do not think that they are anywhere near doing so, for what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop.

(It wasn’t translated accurately in the english version of the conference)

which now doesn’t support your claim on page 11 that Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the idea of an offer from Rome after 1988.

Quote
In addition to this straw-man fallacy, I also pointed out the argument from silence fallacy viz. the absence of any discussions until the archbishop's death proves this "principle", when the archbishop had already recognized that there would be no contact with Rome for the next 2-3 years and that when hypothetical' question of an offer from Rome was put to him he clearly was open to the idea: "let them first make us such an offer!", again disproving this "principle".

Unbrandable, no you are wrong, I suggest to re-read the text and context. The whole paragraph is about an agreement. The archbishop did not foresee one because the root of the problem (viz. an agreement or lack of one) is being given a traditionalist bishop. Here is a professional translation:

Humanly speaking, I see no possibility of agreement at present. Someone said to me yesterday, "What if Rome accepted your bishops and you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" First, they are far from agreeing to something like that, then they would have to make us an offer, and I do not think they will be ready for that because the precise root of the difficulty is giving us a traditionalist bishop ...

So Unbrandable, what is the archbishop's answer to the question posed ("What if Rome ...")? It is this:

He was saying it highly unlikely, but for any agreement, Rome would have to make this offer (hence was clearly open to the idea).

I do not think it wasn’t translated accurately, the article (Feb 1, 2001) does say it had been adapted from the French and I dare say the author's English translation better expresses what the archbishop was trying to say, particularly if the original source was audio (which it probably was).

peterp · « **Reply #89 on:** January 14, 2014, 12:23:17 PM »

Quote from: Unbrandable

D’abord ils sont bien loin d’accepter une chose comme celle-là, ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre, et je ne pense pas qu’ils y soient prêts, car le fond de la difficulté, c’est précisément de nous donner un évêque traditionaliste.

My translator added other possible translations for "ensuite il faudrait qu’ils nous en fassent l’offre":

Literally, it means "then / afterwards, it would be necessary that they make us the offer (of it)". Your suggestion of "make us such an offer" would work, but the "il faudrait" suggests conditional necessity or obligation after they had agreed, rather than a wish or exhortation.

How about:
"and then / afterwards, they would need to make us such an offer".