Let's begin with the General Chapter declaration from July 14, 2012.

Here is the sentence that will live in infamy. And let's not mistake this for a rumor. It is right on the SSPX website.

http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm

We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization.

Hmm, this sounds like they've already established terms for this agreement. What exactly are these terms anyway?

"The Society must be guaranteed freedom to proclaim and transmit the fullness of Catholic Truth. Secondly the Society must be unrestrained “to prohibit, correct and reprove, even publicly, those who foment the errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their consequences.”

Most of the people responsible are long dead. Also, notice how the Society's language has changed from Archbishop Lefevbre. It's not "Rome should convert before we make a deal," but now “The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” So the SSPX is asking for permission to tell the truth from these snakes in the Vatican?

"The second indispensable condition is that the Society continue “use of the 1962 Liturgy” and must preserve “the sacramental practice that we presently have.” The major reason the Society of Saint Pius X had said that they would use the 1962 missal, is to affirm the authority of the Pope, so as not to appear as a “sede vacantist.” There is talk from the Vatican that they are going to send out a “revised” 1962 missal, which they're calling the “mutual enrichment missal,” as a mix of the current 1962 missal, mixed with the Novus Ordo mass. If the Society demands to use the 1962 missal, would they not be hypocritical, citing that they use it because they want to appear not to reject the authority of the pope, if they decide not to use the “revised edition” that Benedict XVI or his successor will eventually put out?

The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. The key question here is, who will choose him? In 1988 Rome proposed that the Archbishop present a selection of three candidates for Rome to choose one. Rome then rejected all three. And so, Archbishop Lefevbre made 3 bishops, disobeying Rome. They ask for a bishop, yet they do not stipulate who has the right to choose this bishop? Perhaps Rome will put one of their own there, or maybe even choose an existing Bishop?

The fourth condition desires that the Society have its own tribunals of the first instance. But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all? All one would have to do, if they didn't like the decision of the SSPX tribunal, would be to appeal it to the local diocese, which likely would give them a different answer.

The fifth condition desires exemption of SSPX houses from control by diocesan bishops. For 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them? This is madness! What if the pope were to accept these "determined and approved conditions?" The Pope would have every right to say "no" and all of the SSPX properties would then go right over to the "local ordinary." Hey, they only "desired exemption." The Pope can freely say no to that!

The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to look after Tradition, with a a strong representation from Tradition, but “dependent on the Pope”. Well, why dependent on the Pope? Benedict/Ratzinger is one of the "Founding Fathers" of the Council. How many are “desired” in this “strong representation from Tradition?” And if the Pope chooses them, they're surely not going to be "traditional" at all.

The Society has admitted to these six conditions on their own website with an article by Brian McCall to refute Bishop Williamson's critique, at the command of Father Duverger.

http://sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm

Please, get your facts right, and make sure when you argue, you use THESE FACTS.

The CNS interview with Bishop Fellay:



"Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty that is, in fact, a very limited one."   :confused1:

"Things we attributed to the Council, weren't really FROM the Council after all."  :furtive:

"Many people have an understanding of the Council, that is a wrong understanding of the Council."  :stare:

"Many things that we would have condemned as coming from the Council, are in fact, not from the Council, but the 'common understanding' of it."  :scratchchin:

"We have to profess our faith, we have to show it. We are not supposed to hide it, but in certain circuмstances, just life tells us that we better 'bow down' if there's a time of persecution. For example, nobody is obliged to provoke the opponent of the persecutor."  :stare:

"Personally I would have wished to have some more time to see things... clearer...  :furtive:, but once again, it appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen NOW. The move of the Holy Father it really comes from him, is genuine. If this recognition happens, it's thanks to him, definitely, and to him alone."

Let me help you out , Pablo. Since you're showing pictures of Ratzinger, let me show you some more flattering ones.