From an absolutely reliable source: Mr. Johnson tells the truth when he says that Bp. Faure resigned from the USML over the matter of sedevacantsim on march 7.
If Mithrandylan and Flatearththey are right, Bp. Faure is wrong. If Bp. Faure is right, Mithrandylan and Flatearththey are wrong.
Right about what?
It's a matter of fact that the Archbishop was not a committed anti-sedevacantist. The only people who still think he was are those who have been hoodwinked by the post-ABL SSPX literature, which took a committed
contra (if not
anti, at times) sedevacantist position after... drumroll... Bishop Fellay took over (against the constitution of the SSPX, if you'll recall, given that ABL never wanted a bishop to be the superior general). This organized effort, emblemized (at its best) by Fr. Boulet's underwhelming "Dossier" and (at its worst) by the nominal endorsement of the indult position via the screeds of Siscoe and Salza, is entirely the product of the post-ABL SSPX.
For my part, the intriguing elements of Bishop Faure's resignation has very little to do with whether or not he's right about sedevacantism. I'm more intrigued by the politics of the USML, and its relationship to Bishop Williamson. I would like to understand how it came to be populated with sedevacantists. So a majority of the members were opposed to allowing sedevacantists to join--
how did they end up joining, then? And what exactly has occurred that has led +Faure to resign? Simply reducing the resignation to not wanting to be around sedevacantists, or not wanting to work with them, or whatever else, is an unsatisfactory answer. The Archbishop didn't feel that way. If +Faure does, then that's his problem. But I think that there's more to the story. And that's what I want to know.