I could post this on IA, but I really have no desire to, due to the uncharitable atmosphere there and the fact that it's basically the same arguments over and over again. However, I have to point out some inconsistencies here, because I can't let this go. (I'm also posting this here because it's nice to be able to make pro-Resistance posts without having to worry about a bunch of illogical comments from Fellayites.)

First of all, this from Nishant is totally illogical:

1. If and only if it becomes absolutely impossible to keep and transmit the faith in a regularized situation, then the injustice of being excluded is to be patiently borne, while still desiring "full" or visible union and chasing away "far from us" the "miserable thought" of "separating from Rome."

2. It is the regularized situation that is to be desired, as soon as it becomes possible, which happens not necessarily only when Rome converts but also if and when Tradition regains its rights in Rome.

First of all, Nishant needs to quit telling people how Archbishop Lefebvre thought, given that he/she is admittedly an FSSP supporter who just attends an SSPX chapel. It's hypocritical for an admitted FSSP fan to try to tell people the Archbishop's mindset.

Secondly, Nishant is merely cherry-picking quotes from the Archbishop to suit his/her own distorted view of the Archbishop's positions. The following two quotes contradict that which Nishant says:

“On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society.Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this.We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Econe, 1990)

Nishant makes the same mistake that the typical pro-Fellay poster makes, quoting old quotes from the Archbishop (most of which are vague) and totally ignoring quotes he made after the 1988 Consecrations.

Another thing I have to respond to is this ridiculous post from "tradical":

Bishop Williamson is edging towards heresy and THAT is how he will exit the Catholic Church - UNLESS of course he decides to go the route of schism first and use heresy as an excuse afterwards as others have done before him.

"t"radical (and yes, I put the "t" in quotations) is referring to +Williamson's comments on the conciliar church. So, I guess Archbishop Lefebvre was also "edging towards heresy" for saying this?

“What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… 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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

What's really hypocritical about this fellow is that one time I pressed him about the heresies of Benedict XVI (i.e. his denial of the restoration of the bodies), and "t"radical said that it's a "serious accusation" to accuse a Pope of heresy, and wouldn't admit that his remark was heretical.

So, here we have a so-called "Traditional Catholic" refusing to admit that Benedict's clear denial of Church teaching is heretical, but having no scrupulosity to accuse Bishop Williamson of "heresy" for merely repeating what the Archbishop said!

I'm sorry, but anyone who can't admit Benedict is at least a material heretic but then accuses a Traditional Catholic bishop of "heresy" is not a Traditional Catholic. "t"radical should not only be banned from IA, but his IP address should be placed on the perma-banned list and never taken off for his absolute despicable posts.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to these two posts. We'll see if it triggers a response from those on the "other side of the fence".

God Bless.

The neo-SSPX is starting to resemble neo-Catholicism.

But instead of making a cult of the conciliar Popes (the Popes makes up the religion as they goes along) they have made a cult of the shifting position of the Superior General.

I'm surprised more Resisters on IA didn't respond to these posts. They shouldn't be dismissed!

   

Consider that to do so is to join in the shell game that these type of loyalists carry on over there, and to permit them the facility of creating long confusing arguments that obscure the true issues and distract and divert from the errors and activities of Menzingen.
To indulge them is to give them a platform to release the fog of obfuscation on that forum. It is best to let their nonsense die quickly via non-response, rather than to fuel it on and on for days and weeks.

The neo-SSPX is starting to resemble neo-Catholicism.


But instead of making a cult of the conciliar Popes..

(these Popes - make up the religion as they go along)

..they have made a cult of the shifting position of the Superior General.

Tele, can I hug you?  . . . . . . [Novordien-speak for 'approval']

.

.

.

.

.

.
How about ...... just have a beer then?   :cheers:


You live in Cincinnati or whatever and I live in L.A. (for the moment) and
the chance we'll ever meet is slim to none, but your comments go a long
way to bringing the light of reason to this darkly shrouded stealth agenda
of the Menzingen-denizens.  I know good priests who cannot see the
forest for the trees and your words have at least a chance of piercing the
fog of unkowing.  

Muito obrigado.  . . . . . . .  

J.Paul:

Consider that to do so (i.e.to engage the IA sophists in argumentation)  is to join in the shell game that these type of loyalists carry on over there, and to permit them the facility of creating long confusing arguments that obscure the true issues and distract and divert from the errors and activities of Menzingen.
To indulge them is to give them a platform to release the fog of obfuscation on that forum. It is best to let their nonsense die quickly via non-response, rather than to fuel it on and on for days and weeks.

I totally agree.  I spend more time on IA than I do here.  You are preaching to the choir here.   We are constantly faced over there with "a fog of obfuscation."  It amounts usually to spewing out oceans of verbiage.  These so-called sspx "loyalists" are incapbable of making short succinct arguments.  That is not the way that sophistry works.  When you manage to corner one of these IA forum lizards from time to time, he simply clams up, refusing to respond.   A parallel may be drawn with the use of tons of foil strips during WWII, dumped from the bays of incoming Allied bombers, in order to confuse German radar systems, and prevent German fighters and artillery installations from detecting their exact locations.  The Nishants, the John McFarlands and the Tradicals over at IA are masters at stringing together prolix, pamphlet-length diatribes which are almost impossible to deconstruct because they mean little to begin with, and convey no useful information.  It's the major weakness in an online discussion format. It's like representative democracy.  That system works only if its leaders are honest men of good will, and the citizens equally honest and forthright.

Wow, really?

Your post, SSS, is riddled with everything from exaggerations through inaccuracies to outright whoppers. Although I am not particularly keen to do so, I will answer you point by point if you wish, whether here, if it is in accord with the forum rules, or on IA, if you want to take it up there, which I doubt.

Yes, I would love to know what you think are "exaggerations and inaccuracies" in my original post.

I'll debate you here.

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

... Your post, SSS, is riddled with everything from exaggerations through inaccuracies to outright whoppers...

Yes, the OP is riddled with whoppers and stuff, for example:

It is the regularized situation that is to be desired, as soon as it becomes possible, which happens not necessarily only when Rome converts but also if and when Tradition regains its rights in Rome.

That's a really big whopper.  Then there's this inaccuracy, here:

Bishop Williamson is edging towards heresy and THAT is how he will exit the Catholic Church - UNLESS of course he decides to go the route of schism first and use heresy as an excuse afterwards as others have done before him.

That's a rehash of the long-ago "trajectory towards schism" canard
of the crusty, dusty Angelqueen forum.


And then, in the Exaggeration Department, we have the report of
what t.radical said in this:

So, here we have a so-called "Traditional Catholic" refusing to admit that Benedict's clear denial of Church teaching is heretical, but having no scrupulosity to accuse Bishop Williamson of "heresy" for merely repeating what the Archbishop said!

Any reasonable estimation of such incongruity of judgment would
have to say that t.radical at LEAST 'exaggerated' by criticizing
+W while giving B16 a free pass - so Nishant was correct,
provided, of course, he wasn't trying to say something else, and
then failed to do so.