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:
QuoteMatthew,
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.
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.
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.
Those who do not know history (even of 50 years ago) are doomed to repeat it. This guy has no understanding of why catholics in the 70s left their dioceses. So sad.Indeed! He is also the one who admitted on the Remnant Forum that his son (Fr. McFarland) confirmed that the SSPX will only ask for marriage jurisdiction to those who are most likely to give jurisdiction but that the SSPX will not ask for jurisdiction from hostile bishops. In that case, the SSPX will use Supplied Jurisdiction. However, he failed to mention that Pope Francis told Bishop Fellay, that if a bishop refuses to give jurisdiction, then he (Pope) will give it to the SSPX, thus Supplied Jurisdiction can no longer be used because the Pope already said he will give it, yet the SSPX will do what they want, proving that they are the ones denying the Pope's authority in practice while at the same time accusing the Resistance of not recognizing the Pope's authority.
..
QuoteQuoteThe 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, KSThen 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.