I just saw the following posted by hollingsworth on Ignis Ardens, thought it was interesting:

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10639

Below find an (open?) letter to a gentleman named John McFarland from Dr. David Allen White. Dr. White is a prominent figure in traditional Catholic circles. This is the story as I have been able to piece it together:
Fr. Ronald Ringrose is the pastor of St. Athanasius Church in Vienna, VA. He has worked closely with the Society for years, though he is not a formal member of SSPX. What is more, Father, apparently, has recently joined forces with Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal in resisting +Fellay & Co.
Mr. McFarland took issue with Father over things the latter was reported to have said about Pope Benedict. He expressed his displeasure with the priest in a public online forum. Father Ringrose, according to Mr. McFarland, has stated that the pope can not be followed, and that he has no papal authority. Mr. McF. accuses Fr. Ringrose of ‘practical sedevacantism.’
Dr. White, who is a parishioner at St. Athanasius, writes the following in response to Mr. McF:

(Aug. 23, 2012)

Dear Mr. McFarland,
 
As you persist in criticizing Fr. Ringrose in a public forum, so must you be answered in the same manner.
 
In saying that whether Benedict XVI is pope or not he cannot be followed, Fr. Ringrose does not suggest the man has no authority. Benedict XVI has no authority to lead souls into heresy or sin. No pope ever has. Period.
 
A few examples of where Benedict XVI is leading souls:
 
In Aosla, July 24, 2009, Benedict XVI praised "the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and echo that praise?
 
In Istanbul on October 30, 2006, Benedict XVI visited the Blue Mosque and prayed with Muslim religious leaders while facing Mecca. Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" the example?
 
On March 3, 2012, Benedict XVI stated that Vatican II was a "true sign of God". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and agree?
 
On May 1, 2011, Benedict XVI beatified John Paul II, saying that his predecessor had "restored to Christianity its true face as a religion of hope". Should Fr. Ringrose begin research to find those earlier Holy Pontiffs who had destroyed that face and stopped the Catholic Church from being a "religion of hope"? (Perhaps this is one reason why Bishop Fellay said in public that he had "mixed feelings" about the beatification.)
 
On January 17, 2010, Benedict XVI visited the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome and referred to Our Lord Jesus Christ only once as "reaffirm[ing] Moses's teaching". Should Fr. Ringrose begin referring to Our Lord in a similar manner, especially when addressing those outside the Catholic Church?
 
Benedict XVI states in his book Jesus of Nazareth that the Church "must not concern itself with the conversion of the Jєωs". Should Fr. Ringrose begin rewriting St Paul's epistles or simply be glad that he might have a little extra time on his hands?
 
Benedict XVI on September 17, 2011, appeared in a "paraliturgical even" with a Lutheran "bishopess". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" his example and seek out a local lady and do likewise?
 
Benedict XVI on September 23, 2011, praised Martin Luther. Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and send up his hosannas?
 
On January 10, 2011, Benedict XVI affirmed that "religious freedom" was his "top public priority"? Should Fr. Ringrose hop on that bandwagon?
 
On November 20, 2010, Benedict XVI stated that condom use could be justified in some cases. Should Fr. Ringrose begin distributing them with clear instructions that they are to be used only in specified cases of emergency?
 
Need I mention Assisi III?
 
Must I go on? (And I certainly could.)
 
Should Benedict XVI actually begin teaching the Catholic faith and exhorting the Catholic faithful and the world to save their souls through the one source of salvation -- the Catholic Church -- as any Catholic Pope should and must, then he will have authority and be followed. Until that time, no soul seeking to avoid hellfire dare "follow" him.

A miracle could occur. All things are possible through God. We must pray for the poor man's conversion.
 
I do indeed "believe in the Church as it has always understood itself" and for that very reason I will NOT be "quits with Father", but, rather, continue to worship at Saint Athanasius Church as I have for 28 years, thanking God for such a holy priest who teaches the fullness of the Catholic faith in this nightmarish time of apostasy.
 
Yours in Christ and His Blessed Mother,
 
David Allen White
 
P.S. If the SSPX does begin offering mass in the area, will it be the 1962 mass consented to by their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre or the new hybrid, hegelian service currently being concocted by Bendect XVI and company? Just wondering

I've always had a great appreciation for Dr White, I'm glad to hear of his position. I guess it's possible that someone is using his name but that would be a bit far-fetched. This seems believable to me.

Father Ringrose has been Dr. White's Priest and confessor for over twenty years.
This is he.

Here is my response to Doctor White's e-mail.

Dear Dr. White,

                The SSPX is well aware of all the items in your bill of particulars, and more besides, and deplores them as energetically, and much more knowledgeably, than you or I.  

But it also teaches, as the Church has always taught, that since the Pope is the pope, he must be obeyed unless he commands evil or that which clearly conduces to evil.  So when he requires obedience, one must make a prudential examination and decision regarding whether to obey or not.  When the possibility of a no-strings regularization (RIP) was floated, Bp. Fellay went through that process, and concluded that in this case, the Society was obliged to pursue that possibility.

                In addition, I have been looking carefully, and thus far have seen no evidence of any softening of Bishop Fellay’s opposition to conciliar errors.  Everybody from Bishop Williamson through the bomb throwers of the blogosphere have asserted such a softening have said as much, but they’ve offered nothing to back it up.  

                So my question is: what do you know, theologically or factually, that the SSPX and its supporters don’t?  As near as I can tell, the answer is: nothing.  

                If Josef Ratzinger has forfeited papal authority as a result of his errors for as long as he persists in his errors, where do I look for the Church in the meantime?  To the sum of (Orthodox  Bishop/Priest 1 and his flock) + (Orthodox Bishop/Priest 2 and his flock) + …. + (Orthodox Bishop/Priest N and his flock)?  That looks very little like the Church as Our Lord and Savior established it, and very little like how it has continued since then.   It looks very much like, well, Protestantism.

No, you don’t believe in the Church as it has always understood itself.  You believe in the Church as it has always understood itself, except that certain doctrines regarding the constitution of the papacy, and of course indefectibility, must be put down in the church basement, and remain there until the first to occur of (a) the return of the popes to orthodoxy or (b) Judgment Day.

You can’t deny the Pope’s authority and still have the Church.  So what you and Father Ringrose are propounding is an ecclesiological ѕυιcιdє pact – destroying our own village in order to save it.
Mother Mary, seat of wisdom, pray for him who holds the seat of Peter, and for us poor scattered sheep.

Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976. This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply."

This whole story line is so full of holes and questionable assumed facts, it begs the question: is it legitimate or just a concoction by some character who calls himself John McFarland to spread disinformation meant to confuse and disorient us?  Is the supposed John McFarland a straw man?

1.) Firstly, the original forum post needs to be docuмented:

"Mr. McFarland took issue with Father over things the latter was reported to have said about Pope Benedict. He expressed his displeasure with the priest in a public online forum."  

What forum? When was this done? The link is necessary.

2.) I have doubt whether Dr. White would refute anything on an internet forum. Can the initial refutation be supported by a link to the original posting?

3.) Doubts exist whether a Catholic priest, unless he is a sedevacantist, would say "the Pope has no papal authority".  Again, such supposed information needs to be supported, otherwise the entire storyline is corrupt and all heresay.  

4.) Who is the character McFarland to say:

"The SSPX is well aware of all the items in your bill of particulars, and more besides, and deplores them as energetically, and much more knowledgeably, than you or I. "

Does he speak for the Society?  Perhaps he is someone else in the Society embodying the character of John McFarland so as to provide certain disinformation through a straw man. It seems to me this can be as true as the printed version in the post, as forums have no way of verifying who is saying what. In other words, it could be true, but it all could be a farce.  Such is the degradation of the principles of information and disinformation in this sad tale of woes in the Society.

5.) Finally, Mr. McFarland's character raises the "obedience to the Pope" issue that we have heard from Society leadership for weeks.  Seems convenient and coincidental.  

Catholics are bound to resist even prelates if they deviate from the unchanging doctrine and Tradition of the Catholic Church, are we not?  It can be demonstrated that the teachings and writings of the Saints that even the highest authority in the Church may fail in his duty and may drift into deviations from Catholic teaching.  

So what is this all about?  A ruse? Perhaps I am wrong, and if so, I will repent of it.  We can no longer take anything in forums such as this for granted to be true unless verified.  

2.) I have doubt whether Dr. White would refute anything on an internet forum. Can the initial refutation be supported by a link to the original posting?

That's what I wondered although I don't know how it could be verified. I do believe however, knowing what I know of him through listening to many of his conferences, that he would take this position. Whether the actual letter is his or not, I think ultimately he would be of one mind with Fr Ringrose. Not just because of Fr Ringrose's person but in light of the whole situation. I would be surprised to hear otherwise.  

Wow, Dr. White to the rescue!

He done kicked poor Mr. McFarland's arse.

While simultaneuosly exposing the pro-prelature crowd's use of the
"sedevacantist" label as merely a political weapon.

 

Wow! Mr. McFarland either didn't grasp Dr. White's e-mail OR he is living in la la land!

I'd say he got his arse kicked, while living in la la land, even though he didn't
grasp Dr. White's e-mail.               Pathetic.

Quote from: John McFarland

In addition, I have been looking carefully, and thus far have seen no evidence of any softening of Bishop Fellay’s opposition to conciliar errors.

As reported by Fr. Niklaus Pluger as being part of the doctrinal preamble response dated April 17, 2012 of Bishop Fellay to Rome:

"The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated."
 

Good job, EM!

Well, first of all, I'm a real person, all right.  I hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy and a J.D, and have been practicing corporate law for 30-odd years.  I came to tradition about ten years ago, mostly by reading the publications of the SSPX.  Our whole family began attending St. Athanasius in about 2005, and I had been attending somewhat longer.  My mother-in-law cashed in his five first Saturdays when Father Ringrose anointed her a few weeks before she died.  My son was ordained priest at Winona in June, and said a first Mass at St. Athanasius on June 24, followed by a reception sponsored by the Holy Name Society, of which I was then treasurer (and continue in a caretaker capacity until a successor is identified, or at least until we can arrange to pass over the checkbook and the cash box).  I have been in contact with the SSPX in connection with the whole matter, and seek to be guided in what I say by what they say; but I do not speak for them, and my getting into all this was my idea and not theirs.

Dr. White's remarks were in an e-mail sent in response to an e-mail I had sent to Father Ringrose, the Holy Name Society and some other people when I learned about the August 10 Declaration.  The e-mail I posted was thus in response to Dr. White's response to my original remarks.  

As regards the merits of the matter, I don't have much more to say than I've already said.  The quotes from the Archbishop represent the standard cherry-picking exercise, but in the last analysis any quotes are irrelevant.  Bishop Fellay is now in charge, and it is he who must apply the principles to the circuмstances.

But let me say a few things that may give a bit more color to my arguments.  

In the years when Rome wouldn't give the Society the time of day (1988-2001), once one understood the errors of the conciliar era, and could find someplace less than half a day away to go to Mass, it was all pretty easy.  Rome could be ignored, and resistance to its errors was a largely costless exercise.  Since Rome asked nothing of traditionalists, the very idea of obedience ceased to have any practical relevance, and so was pretty much forgotten.  Disobedience was the norm, and we reveled in it.  Prudential judgment suffered the same fate; since there were no choices to be made, all positions were expressed in 72 point bold face block caps with plenty of exclamation points.

So when Rome began to deal with the Society again, the reaction of many was to hug their cheap and easy heroism and their block cap rhetoric to their bosoms, and consider anyone who said or did otherwise a sellout, with evidence of the sellout not required.  Having lost any idea of obedience, they viewed all exercise of authority by the SSPX as Fellayite Repression, and any suggestion that we owed the Pope obedience didn't even get through the screen.   That's where a lot of you guys still are; you're having so much fun that you can't be bothered noting that the chance of a settlement is zero if not less.

Since Rome asked nothing of traditionalists, the very idea of obedience ceased to have any practical relevance, and so was pretty much forgotten.

They've always asked for the SSPX to obey.  Nice try, but that's an obfuscation.

They never said it was OK to be a traditionalist.  The reason the SSPX didn't obey isn't that the Vatican never told it to obey.  That is absurd!

The reason they didn't obey is that the modernists are not Christians.