.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 PostPage 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.
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.
.