CathInfo.com

.

What a headache.

Well, for one thing, SSS, the two points I summarized were almost verbatim from a section of the Archbishop's speech (which was, btw, neither "old"

If it was 25 years ago, how could it not be "old?"

nor "vague", it was crystal clear and made rather on the very day of the consecrations) that was expunged in your partial attribution, though that context was necessary to understand what I'd said and why I'd put certain words in quotation marks. You could have given a link to the post on IA, at least.

 

If you think a link is such an essential asset, why don't you put one
in here yourself?  Then you wouldn't be able to complain that it's
missing anymore?  What else could it be?  

Anyway, I'm not sure what you want to debate about,

Do you want a list?  I haven't even seen the discussion!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

though I'm happy to do so here or anywhere. The crux of the disagreement between the Society and the resistance now is the General chapter conditions

Uuuh, no..... are you from another planet?  It goes back to the previous
century, actually, like your own signature does: "This will come about one
year before the end of the century."

and pt. 11 of the Three Bishops' declaration, where the Bishops say, following the Archbishop, that Tradition regaining its rights in Rome is a sufficient condition for the acceptance of a canonical regularization. Is that it?

Yeah, that's a pretty big whopper, especially "following the Archbishop,"
unless of course, you mean that it comes in the wake of ABL's untimely
death.  (Untimely for us, that is!  Not for him!)



Anyway, have fun, Servus.  And Godspeed.   :cheers:  You'll need it.....

Charming as ever, NeilO. :)

Uh, if Archbishop Lefebvre didn't want to separate himself from conciliar Rome, Nishant, don't you think he wouldn't have bothered going through with the Consecrations?

Not at all. For the reason the Archbishop explained, which I summarized in point 1. Fr. Laisney has also explained this point very well, proving it from the Doctors and the Saints, basing it on St. Robert in particular, an unjust suspension or excommunication does not rupture the internal bond of hierarchical communion so long as the external bond of communion is still desired.

That's only part of it. There's much more to the problem than that.

Okay, very well. State the disagreement as you understand it and the proposition you would like to debate.

And I would like to say that, while I disagree with your position, I do applaud you for at least being charitable

Thank you SSS. Likewise. God be with you.

I think it would be good to begin by looking at what the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and other theologians and authorities have said about such a situation.

But anyway, Telesphorus, about 10 days before the consecrations, reflecting on why the discussions with the Roman authorities had failed, the Archbishop said the situation was no more about a "pure and simple" canonical recognition of the Society.

Archbishop Lefebvre said he had mentioned at the beginning two conditions in particular "bishops taken from within Tradition" and "majority on the Roman commission" to be "well protected from liberal influences". So he envisioned a situation where post-regularization sufficient protection for Tradition would be granted, enabling the Society to work toward the restoration of Tradition to Rome and the mainstream Church.

There are several other statements he made both slightly before and after 1988 to this effect. The Society has now added to that almost 7 conditions, 3 preconditions already granted, 3 sine qua non conditions which are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for the protection of Tradition post regularization if at all it happens, 3 desirable conditions which if granted will hasten the return of Tradition to Rome.

So, by that same standard, especially considering two important developments in particular since 1988, the fact that every priest's right to say the traditional Mass has been juridically recognized, second, that especially following the doctrinal discussions, some of Rome's own professors and other persons in positions of authority, I'm not talking only about Romano Amerio and Brunero Gherardini, in the mainstream Church have begun to question and criticize the Conciliar texts themselves like never before, see the DICI articles on this subject, Bishop Fellay and the other Bishops and priests reason, that a no strings or in the Archbishop's words a "pure and simple" canonical regularization under the right sine qua non conditions granted in advance is something good and not to be refused if it is offered.