A strong piece of evidence that you're wrong:

ABL consecrated 4 bishops in disobedience to the Pope, for the continuation of Tradition. THAT is Resisting in a concrete, efficacious manner.

+W has consecrated 3 bishops (same situation -- without papal approval, for the continuation of Tradition, validly, publicly, etc.)

The SSPX has officially (at the highest levels) come out strongly against these consecrations, even condemning them. +Fellay has basically committed to NO MORE illicit consecrations. So if, for some reason, he doesn't get his Rome deal, the SSPX is through!

Even if, as you say, the SSPX is still rejecting Vatican II, etc. in that case, the SSPX is through because they have committed to no more consecrations without papal approval. They are in the process of changing into FSSP which is why we see all kinds of contradictions like this.

I think it's obvious who is following the footsteps of +ABL. If +Fellay wants to be seen as the successor of +ABL, he needs to "do the works of +ABL."



On 03/14/2018 10:32 AM, John McFarland wrote:

Matthew,

        The non-resistance of the Society has no basis in fact.  It has been five years and counting since the SSPX declined to accept Vatican II, and it has continued to do so until this very day.  Fr. Laisney has been proven a prophet: for 5+ years, the position of the Resistance is that the sellout will happen next week.  

        The Resistance is based on two things.  One is that some people enjoy having someone to hate, and in the case of much of the Resistance that someone is +Fellay.  The other is a more or less explicit denial of the authority of the pope.  That denial is now becoming quite explicit. Given the Archbishop's position, the notion that the Resistance are his true sons is absurd.

        I pray for both the conversion of Rome and the conversion of the Resistance.  Both are in great need of it, since the positions of both are at odds with the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

Sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis
John McFarland


On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 11:00:42 AM EDT, Matthew wrote:


And the neo-SSPX should make it clear that it does not Resist.
 
 So we're even.
 
 
 
 On 03/14/2018 09:55 AM, John McFarland wrote:
 

Quote

Matthew,

 
        If ever there was an R&R man, it was the Archbishop.

 
        So I think the Resistance should make clear that it doers not Recognize, and so has no part with him.

 
In caritate,
John McFarland
 

 

The Resistance is based on two things.  One is that some people enjoy having someone to hate, and in the case of much of the Resistance that someone is +Fellay.  The other is a more or less explicit denial of the authority of the pope.  That denial is now becoming quite explicit. Given the Archbishop's position, the notion that the Resistance are his true sons is absurd.

I don't know who John McFarland is, but he does not have a clue, proof of this fact is what he said right here.



 

He is the father of Fr. McFarland, SSPX priests stationed in St. Mary's, KS and current principal of the SMA Girl's School.

I believe Mr. McFarland is a chapel coordinator at a SSPX mission chapel, not sure which one.

.
People like John McFarland are simply lost, and there's practically no hope for them to ever wake up.
.
+Fellay and his crowd will take the assets of the SSPX (chapels like the ones Fr. Hector Bolduc, RIP, purchased with his Benzinger Brothers fortune) and melt into hyperspace but the real remnant will live on, because Bishop Williamson has "handed down what he has received," namely, episcopal consecration. (Tradidi quod et accepi, I have handed down that which I have received.)
.
The episcopacy of +W has been fruitful, while the episcopacies of +Fellay, +de Mallerais and +de Galarreta have been barren. There is utterly no reason to expect this situation will ever change. Like they say in Las Vegas, "What you see is what you get."
.
In imitation of the die-hard fixation of +F and his two quasi-subjects who are committed to never pass their episcopacy on to anyone else lest Newrome would be offended, McFarland (who really ought to know better) remains fixated on an aging, dying faction which doesn't have long to live. 

He is the father of Fr. McFarland, SSPX priests stationed in St. Mary's, KS

Then you'll never hear him criticize the SSPX for anything. He'll never be impartial in his judgements.

For those who defend the new position of making a practical agreement before a doctrinal agreement, ask them this question: "If the next Superior General were to admit that it was imprudent to make a practical agreement first and that the SSPX will now go back to the previous position of doctrine first, then would you, as an SSPX supporter, agree with the new Superior General and admit the previous S.G. was imprudent or will you now admit the new S.G. is wrong and he should have continued the policy of the previous S.G.?"

I know someone who ask this question to strong supporter of Bishop Fellay's current position, and he did not get a response to this question.

That is because they are following persons rather than principles and that is a very, very, very dangerous game to play.