CathInfo.com

CI-

Some are saying that Bishop Fellay and Rome had already worked out an agreement for the freeing of the Mass, and the lifting of the excommunications (and now for a practical accord under Francis) before the Crusades for these intentions were implemented, and that therefore, these Crusades are blasphemous.

To these, I pose a question:

If you were interviewing for a job, and were told, "We are going to offer you employment," but the employer had not yet presented you with an offer letter, would it be blasphemous to have your family pray, in light of this knowledge, that the employer followed through on his pledge?

Obviously not.

Likewise, if behind closed doors Bishop Fellay and Rome come to a gentleman's agreement (but not an official agreement), how does it become blasphemy for Bishop Fellay afterwards to initiate Crusades in the hopes Rome will follow through?

This intention is quite far removed from blasphemy.

If you wish to assert that Bishop Fellay used the Crusades blasphemously, you must be able to show that his intention was to make it seem as though heaven blessed his plans (as opposed to misinterpreting the results), not that he instituted them in the hopes that Rome follow through with what had been agreed behind closed doors, as seems more probable.

The difference between the two intentions is acute: The former implies deceit and treachery; the latter implies pius reliance on providence.

This subject once again provides fertile ground for recounting the Church's teaching on rash judgment (i.e., Unquestioning conviction about another's bad conduct, without adequate grounds for the judgment), and I think it impossible to pretend there exists adequate grounds when the matter pertains to the internal forum (i.e., Bishop Fellay's intention).

If myself I do not participate in this Rosary Crusade, it is not because I think them blasphemous, but because I do not support a practical accord with unconverted Rome, which I consider profoundly imprudent (and this intention "for the return of tradition to the Church" could be interpreted as praying for a practical accord).

The battle to restore the Church must be fought within the confines of Catholic morals, and to publicly impute blasphemous intention (as against the more probable explanation I have provided) is no small thing.

Our duty, if we wish to presume, is to presume the best in others.

And while I may disagree with the intention of the present Crusade, it is obvious Bishop Fellay pursues this agenda in good faith, which is anything but blasphemous.

Sean Johnson
 

If myself I do not participate in this Rosary Crusade, it is not because I think them blasphemous, but because I do not support a practical accord with unconverted Rome, which I consider profoundly imprudent (and this intention "for the return of tradition to the Church" could be interpreted as praying for a practical accord).

Exactly. The true Traditional Catholics and the modern Rome-leaning Accordistas will each interpret it in their own way.

How do you say "weasel" in Latin?

Quote from: Matthew

If we're praying that the employer follow through on his job offer, it would be nice for US to also know that we have a gentleman's agreement that we got the job.

In other words, Bishop Fellay should tell us that he's made a secret deal, and we're just praying that it goes through. You know, "transparency".

Any good leader is transparent on things of this nature. Abp Lefebvre certainly was.

In fact, far from sharing this information with us, Bishop Fellay went on record saying there wouldn't be a deal!! How does that show good faith?

Matthew-

I happen to agree with you.

But mismanagement does not equal blasphemy.

Pax tecuм,

Sean Johnson

Well, I don't exactly disagree with your OP either. I wouldn't use the word "blasphemy". I don't know what % of Resistance supporters, CI members, etc. would use that term to refer to the latest Rosary Crusade.

But especially in light of his public "backpedaling" statements in late 2013/early 2014, one would have to grant: deceptive, cynical, etc.

And that "judgment" is reached by evidence in the external forum, logic, and the nature of things.