I would like to commend B from A in providing this excellent answer
to Ekim's question! It's most impressive that you were able to put
this all together is such short order. Ekim must have been rather
astounded to get his question answered so efficiently, as if he were
a prominent subscriber to an information resource sub-contractor
whose business it is to provide quick and pithy answers to obscure
questions, backed up with pages of detail if such might prove needed!
It took me longer to READ THROUGH it all than it took B from A to
post it in the first place, as logged in the time stamps of his posts.
I found one place that Ekim (and others) might like to have brought
forward for reference and context. In the post found
here, B from
A links
the Recusant's website article, which is found online
(obviously) but it is not found in your hard copy editions. Nor is this
unusual, for The Recusant posts on the website principally those items
that somehow do not "make the final cut" for the hard copy
newsletters. I haven't seen anyone point this out, but it is consistently
the case from what I have seen. There are a few articles in their
Reference Materials section that were printed in some issue of the
Newsletter, and likewise in the
Recent Articles area, such as
the "
Quo Vadis DICI..." that is to be found also in The Recusant Issue #4
on pages 28-31. Don't be confused with the "Part 1" in the title,
for the hard copy does not say "Part 1" anywhere, rather it has
"(Evidence & Analysis)" on the first page "
Inside:" summary.
I'm just mentioning these details in case this kind of thing makes
for confused research. It seems to me that a few thousand people
might suddenly become real interested in digging up evidence for
"What in the world was going on all these years?" -when there is an
eventual 'deal' struck with modernist Rome and those thousands find
themselves evicted from the chapels they bought, built and maintained
for the past 4 or 5 decades, some even longer. In the post linked above, the quoted article found on The Recusant
website (but not found in the hard copy Newsletter) contains a number
of excellent points, but it is an article that might be a bit taxing for
some readers to finish, as it has a lot of detail centered around only
one aspect or "problem" -as stated,
"We will for the moment focus on just one problem
contained in Bishop Fellay's April 2012 text."
Near the bottom of the article quoted is found a very important section
that directly addresses the question that Ekim asked in his OP:
Thus
Bishop Fellay’s April 2012 text is significantly worse, more liberal, more modernist-friendly, and more lethal and damaging to Tradition than the 1988 text given to Archbishop Lefebvre. Those SSPX clerics who favour an agreement with Rome have made much of Archbishop Lefebvre's words prior to the episcopal consecrations, and for the past year we have been told that what was being intended was nothing less than what the Archbishop himself would have wished. And yet, in the Archbishop's own words, Bishop Fellay's April 2012 “Doctrinal Preamble” text is different from anything that the Archbishop would ever have considered signing, even when at his most optimistic, because:
“Differently from in the [1988] protocol, in these new texts
[i.e. in the Oath of Fidelity, and therefore, by extension, in Bishop
Fellay’s April 2012 text] there is a submission to the Council and all
the conciliar bishops.”
Is Bishop Fellay aware of all this? Is there any conceivable way in which he could not be aware of this?
Please Note Well: Ekim's question asks about the differences, if any,
beyond the question of ONE BISHOP for ABL. ALL of these points have
nothing inherently to do with ABL getting a bishop. They may be a bit
not unrelated, but you could easily REMOVE the question of "one bishop"
from the mix and still have a most compelling and serious objection to
the
4-12 Response to the 9-11 Protocol. I provide the context so you can see how it fits in, but the key sentence is
the one emphasized:
Bishop Fellay’s April 2012 text is significantly worse, more liberal, more modernist-friendly, and more lethal and damaging to Tradition than the 1988 text given to Archbishop Lefebvre.Now pull out the adjectives:
Significantly worse
Significantly more liberal
Significantly more modernist-friendly
Significantly more lethal to Tradition
Significantly more damaging to Tradition Once again - all this is IN ADDITION TO ABL getting "a bishop."
As the article says, getting the bishop was perhaps the "most
urgent matter" at hand because ABL didn't want to die before
passing on the episcopal charism of his office.
But "urgent" does
not mean "doctrinally important!" And these other matters are
arguably more important than "a bishop" on that grounds.
So Ekim's friend got FALSE INFORMATION from the SSPX priest.
These modifiers all belong to Bishop Fellay's now notorious screed,
his Declaration, or Doctrinal Declaration, or Response to the 9-11
Protocol, or April 15th
"preamble, or whatever you may wish to
call it," words found at the end of page 1 of the current Recusant,
Issue 6, April 2013.
It is truly a daunting task to keep all of this data lined up and
intelligible, while the Menzingen-denizens are busy like termites
running around disseminating lies, falsehoods, innuendo, subterfuge,
calumny, spite, derision, hate, presumption, insults, punishments,
backbiting, detraction, error, self-contradiction, malice of intent,
and mudslinging. It's really worse than most "ugly" political
campaigns ever get! And on that fact alone, should be our big clue!
They can't impress anyone with facts, because the facts are not in
their favor, so they resort to these
SMEAR TACTICS (I forgot that
term!) in their pitiful attempt to sway the lemmings, the minions,
their erstwhile Faithful of the SSPX congregations. And this has a
tsunami-like effect on the whole of Tradition worldwide. It first
affects the friends and neighbors of those who sit in the pews, by
hearing them explain things, and those friends and neighbors take
the "news" to their friends at independent chapels.
This ugliness is most unbecoming for the impression that
outsiders get of the Catholic Church. And it makes for a
very challenging task for anyone who wants to attract a
convert, because few will be interested in a Church with
so much controversy and unattractiveness going on.
For people like me, it is most challenging to "keep the peace" with
fellow Catholics whose Faith we share, and there ought not be any
such barbs of division between us. I must back off from any
presumption of ill-intent on their part, for "There must be some key
fact missing in their understanding."
Nor is the "KEY FACT" the same from person to person. So we have
to be well-prepared with a HOT LIST of key facts that may need to
be illuminated, or brought out into the open, so that the truth can
make us free.