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?