SP denies affirming that the other bishops have sold out long ago, when he practically implies it since they have been aligned with the SSPX (Ergo with bishop Fellay) till now.

That is absurd logic. Just because they haven't broken away yet means they have sold out? You don't know what you're talking about.

How is it that Archbishop Lefebvre who could call a spade a spade, and even use some harsh words to refer to the Conciliar Church leaders long before 1987, could also turn around (as I already showed you all in my posting on the issue) and ask the Holy See for recognition without becoming a traitorous apostate by your reasoning? Given also he had already written great expositions on the conciliar errors and the new Mass and yet he would ask for recognition of his work by the Holy See. Please explain to me how you can then claim that you are representing this saintly giant of man?

Once again, you leave out the fact that the Archbishop NEVER SIGNED A DEAL. You're being dishonest.

How is it that the 3 other bishops are not seen by your reasoning as traitorous apostates for asking the Holy See (in writing with their own hand written signatures) to remove the excommunications with the Archbishop himself never considered as just or binding in the first place?

This is crazy.

How is it that the other 3 bishops could go along with Bishop Fellay till now without making an open contentions regarding the negotiations and the doctrinal discussions, without being seen as traitorous apostates?

The other Bishops have not "gone along" with it. You are lying. May I remind you that Bishop Williamson is practically limited to his Eleison Comments blog to speak the truth given his de facto boot from his position in the Society? Oh, but according to you he's gone along with it. You're a liar.

My point is that you are selective in try to make it all a "Bishop Fellay" issue, when the entire SSPX is in on this position. Reality is just hard for some people to handle for some. Hence planet Earth, well . . .  for some Mars seems to be the preference?

I think you deserve to be banned.

The crack pots on the list try to shift the issue by attacking Fellay and saying well, you are 'Liberal, Modernist, etc if you don't follow us self appointed pontiffs who great at putting out venomous invectives against anyone without scruple that we shall answer to God for it, since, well, we are Trad Cats !

More insanity.

Anthony M, you keep asserting that those who do not believe Benedict is the Pope therefore objectively treat themselves as if they can make judgments that only one with papal authority can.  Yet those who hold to this theological opinion -- which has the backing of many approved theologians prior to the Latrocinium -- do so precisely out of obedience to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, being uncomfortable with the SSPX's position of "sifting" through magisterial statements and deciding which are binding and which are not.  You have not established your central claim, yet you keep repeating the charge despite the fact that, if anything, you are guilty of it whereas those you accuse are not.  Perhaps that is why you rely on using middle class political epithets like "crackpot," which is the equivalent of the term "extremist," which seems to imply that one who holds opinions that are rejected by the majority of the mediocre crowd are somehow not of sound mind.  Do you not see how un-Catholic such a social attitude is ?  Do you not see how unfair and unjust you are being and how you therefore objectively embarrass yourself and your position ?

Those are just a few things for you to consider before, during, and after you post over the course of... however long you are still a member here (the next few days ?).

Once again my assertions and questions have not been answered. Hence why I say ‘crack pots’ –

It was stated:  

I will support Bishop Fellay's initiative to sign with Rome if you can demonstrate 2 things:


1)  Signing a purely practical deal while all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved is not an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism;

2) You cite post-1988 citations of archbishop lefebvre asserting a purely practical solution would be an acceptable response to the crisis in the church.

  Everything else in this dialogue is an irrelevant distraction.

My answer is thus.

1.   Prove the contrary that it is an acceptance of false pluralism. The SSPX has always claimed that it believes Benedict XVI is pope and that in all lawful things it subjects itself to him even if there wasn’t any working canonical agreement between them and the Holy See, and so the working canonical agreement will change nothing but simply give them the due recognition which is due to them as true members of the Catholic Church.

2.   After the Archbishops request for recognition of his work was turned down he never again expected his request to be heard under JPII. That said, he made it clear that he in non way rejected the Holy See and the office it holds as mother, guide and teacher.

Perejoseph, please get a brain. Prove what you claim or else if you don’t have anything intelligent to write don’t waste our time!

   Anthony-

   1) I would be happy to.

       But don't take my words for it.

       Listen to the three bishops make my case for me in their letter to Bishop      Fellay:

       "He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities .” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Counciliar teachings."

       If therefore Bishop Fellay will accept a merely practical agreement that will not permit him to condemn Conciliar error, please explain to me how that is anything other than implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism?  

       He knows once he signs on the dotted line, he must not condemn Roman modernism.

       As the old Latin maxim states: "Qui tacit consentire" (i.e., Silence implies consent).

       And this line of reasoning (i.e., to agree not to condemn is to accept), which should be plain to most not prejudiced by bias, is the thinking of the bishops.

   2) Who is rejecting the idea that the Holy See has authority to govern the Church?  All of the sudden, a new SSPX doctrine has been invented: If the Pope is the Pope, we must sign an agreement and obey.  What of all the distinctions between true/false obedience?  Epikeia?  Necessity?  What about all the solid refutations the SSPX has published over the years along these lines against the same assertions made by Campos, FSSP, TAR, La Barroux, etc?

       If you are right today, then you owe them all a big apology for the injustices the SSPX positions represented at those times.

       But since you are not right today, but instead are merely parroting the Roman/Menzingen line of "We have authority!  Obey!" without any reference to doctrine, how do you expect the persipcacious SSPXer to abide by your position?

prior to the Latrocinium

I kept thinking, "where have I heard that before?". Took me a minute, but then .....

Gotcha. Nice one.

An apt historical reference to the Robber Council of Ephesus AND a very fitting Latin reference to Vatican II, all in one word.

Good job!

I do not understand all of this - and I may be completely wrong about the possible outcome (I do not think there will be "a deal" that SSPX will agree to) - but is it just me or has everyone gone batty about this?

Here we have an ex-SSPX priest with absolutely no axe to grind [/sarcasm] doing a preliminary analysis of the "SSPX deal". What deal?

Where is everyone getting all the latest inside information from and what's next?

I, for one, get the idea that the SSPX is preparing the faithful for a deal with Rome from the SSPX priest who told us in his sermon on Sunday that the leaking of the letters from the Society bishops was not helpful in "our eventual canonical status with Rome."

   Why do you bother to post if you ignore the argument?

   I just laid out for you how the command to accept an agreement on the part of Bishop Fellay direcctly contradicts the Faith, as it is an acceptance of doctrinal pluralism.

   Let you next post be nothing other than a demonstration of how I am wrong, and we can continue the dialogue.

   Anything other than that will be ignored.

Absolutely!  We need to stay on point and not deviate.  There has been an almost immediate upswing in threads and posters on this and other forums raising irrelevant issues like this and sedevacantism. It is all meant to distract from the core issue of doctrine. Just as Bishop Fellay's letter ignored answering the doctrinal issue raised by the three, and instead scolded them lie errant schoolchildren, distracting the reader from the central question of heterodox vs orthodox incompatability.
When discussing this subject of an agreement, we should ignore any line of inquiry which clouds or distracts from the central issues of doctrine and the purity of the Faith.