SO, if +ABL could work in a canonically regular structure in 1970, the SSPX can do so now in 2021. On May 5, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol for the canonical normalization of the Society: https://fsspx.org/en/protocol-agreement-may-5-1988
On May 6th, 1988, as docuмented in the above link, +ABL still said he had signed with "real satisfaction". His main reason for hesitating was the lack of a guarantee of a Catholic Bishop for Tradition. Tradition now has many Catholic Bishops, including 3 with Ordinary Jurisdiction i.e. Apostolic Mission. Hence, the Society said, under Bishop Fellay, "This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not lose our sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder. "
+ABL, 1988: "Your Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me informing me of the Holy Father’s answer concerning episcopal consecrations ... In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Your Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle"
Sean, LOLOL. What you are asking is worse than Luther and Calvin asking for every Catholic Doctrine to be proved by Sola Scriptura. It is like Deists/Rationalists asking for every Truth to be proved from Christ's Word in the Gospel alone. But even "Sola post 1988" can be met. Can you answer my questions before that: (1) Do you agree with what +ABL said in 1983 about the Nine, or do you consider it now mistaken and retracted? (2) Do you agree with the Nine that Resistance to +ABL was justified and necessary, because of his continued negotiations with Rome? (3) Do you agree with Fr. Cekada (God rest his soul), who said he would have resisted +ABL in 1988?
+ABL, 1990: "humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See.
"Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to the Fraternity of St. Peter."
From: https://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
So +ABL, post the magical date of 1988, said: "(1) humanly speaking, there appears to be no chance of reconciliation. (2) if Rome accepted +ABL's Bishops for Catholic Tradition and gave them OJ of their own, +ABL would be open to the offer. (3) Rome was quite far from making any such offer at the time. So, in other words, by making such an offer now, Rome has come a long way since then.
So do you agree with +ABL that the Society can legitimately be open to such an offer coming from the Roman Authorities, or not?
Re: Priest being Superior. It's fine if the Bishops don't have Jurisdiction. Imho, once Bishops get Apostolic Mission, as the SSPX Bishops now do, as Sean agrees, then they should be Superior. But that's a minor point not related to the broader issue. If Bishop Zendejas had AM, H.E. could command the Priests under him and they would be bound to obey. That's why I hold there are advantages to having AM, and it should be obtained when possible.
Ladislaus, Sean agrees with Baptism of Desire, as you know. I hold St. Augustine didn't retract BOD but believed all who received Baptism of Desire would also receive Baptism of Water. St. Augustine never denied, for instance, that Cornelius in Acts 10 received BOD.
God Bless.
Nice try, but no cigar:
1) Your first quote is from prior to the consecrations;
2) Your second quote wrongly rends and misconstrues Lefebvre as still being willing to negotiate:
This is a disingenuous hallucination, when in fact Lefebvre’s response (“first, let them make an offer!”) was
scoffing at the mere suggestion. This is obvious from his comment in Spiritual Journey only a few months later (and which he was already writing at the time of this interview), in which he again states collaboration with a conciliar church is impossible.
And only a few months prior, Lefebvre has explained that Rome must accept the doctrine of the great post-ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary encyclicals (ie. Rome must convert).
When Rome converts, we can talk.
In other words, for your tortured interpretation to be correct, you must introduce incoherence into Lefebvre’s mind (ie., a Lefebvre willing to negotiate with a conciliar Rome, for which it is a strict duty to remain separated), which according to the great accordist, Fr. Celier (“How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre”) is not permissible, nor -supposing you were correct in your wrong interpretation- is a stray comment permitted to stand against a consistent and overwhelming body of writings and comments to the contrary, from the time of the consecrations.
In other words, you are still without any support from Lefebvre for your position.
Topic: Bp. Zendejas's Apostolic Mission? (Read 12609 times)