Yet Another!!...................Kyrie Eleison.........

Yet Another!!...................Kyrie Eleison.........

Predictions on length of thread?  LOL

.

Your excerpt..

Quote from: your excerpt

This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement

Suffice it to say that the Traditional "movement" was instituted long before Archbishop Lefebvre. There were courageous and principled priests who refused the Conciliar revolution from its inception as far back as the 1960's, when ABL's signature was upon the Conciliar docuмents was still drying.

This present series of the Bishop's has a certain air of unreality about it.
It is strange indeed.

..omits the context, and then you presume to micro-analyze one sentence.  While the literal meaning of the sentence allows your interpretation, the context would show your criticism to be quite narrow and unfair.  It is the principle of papal authority and the preservation of a proper understanding of this principle within the Society that ABL founded (in France, "within Tradition" refers specifically to what's going on in the SSPX, frequently, and this can be exemplified), which is the topic of these ECs in this series.

If you're looking for reasons to mutter opposition and to pick fault with every word, you're looking at +W's writings as if his methods are as questionable as the noxious notions expressed in the words and writings of +Fellay.    

Here is the context:

By now it should also be clear that

Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round. This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp.

Just see in the Gospel of St John how often Our Lord himself, as man, declares that what he is teaching comes not from himself but from his Father, for instance: “My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me” (VII, 16), or, “I have not spoken from out of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (XII, 49). Of course nobody on earth is more authorized than the Pope to tell Church and world what is in Tradition, but he cannot tell Church or world that there is in Tradition what is not in it. What is in it is objective, now 2,000 years old, it is above the Pope and it sets limits to what a Pope can teach , just as the Father’s commandment set limits to what Christ as man would teach.

Then how can liberals and sedevacantists alike claim, in effect, that the Pope is infallible even outside of both EM and OUM ? Because both overrate authority in relation to truth, and so they see Church authority no longer as the servant but as the master of truth. And why is that ? Because they are both children of the modern world where Protestantism defied the Truth and liberalism ever since the French Revolution has been dissolving objective truth. And if there is no longer any objective truth, then of course authority can say whatever it can get away with, which is what we observe all around us, and there is nothing left to stop a Paul VI or a Bishop Fellay from becoming more and more arbitrary and tyrannical in the process.

Mother of God, obtain for me to love, discern and defend that Truth and order coming from the Father, both supernatural and natural, to which your own Son was as man subject, “unto death, even to the death of the Cross”.

Kyrie eleison

The loss of objective truth in depth explains

The Church’s sedevac and liberal pains.

Why would you not bother, J.Paul, to mention what comes immediately before your snippet without mentioning what preceded it or followed it?  

It would seem that if you had included the context you would not have been providing a sound argument since the context shows your claim to be hollow:

"By now it should also be clear that Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round. This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp. Just see in the Gospel of St John how often Our Lord himself, as man, declares that what he is teaching comes not from himself but from his Father,..."

Why don't you accuse Jesus Christ of not having founded the Church, since what He taught came not from Him but from His Father?  

+W provides a very apt analogy here, that what ABL founded (objectively the SSPX in general, and the Traditional movement within the SSPX in particular), came not from ABL but from the longstanding Sacred Apostolic Tradition that was handed down to him, and to what he refers in the inscription he had bequeathed as instruction for what his memorial at his tomb should say:  "TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI."  

Maybe you didn't know that.  

It means, "I have handed on down (to you) that which I have received (from the Apostles)."  This is firstly and most obviously the unbroken line of Apostolic Succession in his consecration of 4 bishops, but it is also the faithful understanding of Church Tradition, which BTW includes what authority means in the Church and how it is understood in practice.  He could not enforce that outside the Society, but it was enough of a challenge to somehow preserve it WITHIN the Society that he founded.

Therefore this "air of unreality" of which you accuse +W is a myopic and self-serving criticism that ignores the larger picture.  

"Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round."  The Popes do not arbitrarily invent what they want us to think constitutes Tradition.   +W was trying to be brief.  Perhaps his brevity leaves room for misunderstanding.  

To drag out the literal implication of his sentence here would be to accuse him of saying something that I don't think he intended, namely, The Popes do not tell Tradition what to teach.   I suspect he would not have written that.  Reason being that what constitutes "Tradition" to one person might not be what another would think.  Our Lord criticized the Jєωs for practicing "the traditions of men" but He was referring to accretions that were unwritten at that time but would later emerge in the тαℓмυd.  

The тαℓмυd is to the legitimate Church what the Newcode of Canon Law is to Apostolic Tradition.  But +W can't say that, (but I can, thanks to Matthew) as you know, because he would be at risk for further sanctions as "anti-Semitic" (even in that stupid court case in Germany that still lingers on) largely because +F is too much of a coward to defend his own brother bishop's proper and just pronouncements.  

If Pope Paul VI was the worst pope in history, what does it imply to compare his effects to those of the current SG of the Society?  Would you, J.Paul prefer to defend Paul VI and +F and what they've done to the Church and to the preservation of Tradition?

You, J.Paul, should not be taking up arms against +W, who is on our side;  and you, J.Paul, should not be nit-picking for needles in the haystack.  


.

You, J.Paul, should not be taking up arms against +W, who is on our side;  and you, J.Paul, should not be nit-picking for needles in the haystack.  

I am neither picking up arms against the Bishop, or nit-picking.
I pointed out a needless and confusing mistake, and I would cast out the whole haystack of this series. The weekly dosing of folks with contradictory R&R doctrine which has the result of  joining in on the Menzigen/resistance anti-sedevacantist campaign.

The Church is not collapsing due to Bishop Fellay's follies or John Lane's and Father Cekada's expositions of an empty chair. It is the grinding relentless progress being made by the Conciliar revolutionaries in Rome and in the chanceries, and ѕуηαgσgυє like churches of the New Order.

Relatively speaking, the SSPX/resistance/sedevacantist world is a side show, distracting and diverting energies and minds from turning to address the true source of the Church's crisis.

Catholicism needs a an authentic resistance to battle the disease which imperils us. The time for discoursing over symptoms is long past.