CathInfo.com

Quote from: Seraphim

  Well, getting back on track...

   We can debate all we like about whether or not the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay ought to have been leaked or not.

   But, presuming the authenticity of the letter is verified, some things are now clear:

1) It is established there is a great divide within the SSPX on the matter;

2) Resistence to the deal with Rome has been communicated to Menzingen from within;

3) Bishop Fellay has been made aware, from his own, that he is contradicting the path laid out for him by Archbishop Lefebvre, and why that path was so sound all these years;

4) And that nothing has changed in Rome to justify this new course.

   Hearing it from his own confreres will do more than a million letters from the faithful.

   But will it have any effect?

Who has the authority to declare Fellay is contradicting the path of Lefebvre?  Not that this matters to any of you but in 82 Schmidberger was appointed by Lefebvre as Vicar general and he supports the deal.  I think he has a pretty good idea of the path laid out by Lefebvre; far better than anyone on this forum.  

What authority do you claim that enables you to say the new course can't be justified?

What does authority have to do with it?

Do you think authority is required to read the archbishop and observe who is following his plan?

Or, do you appeal to the argument from authority, like your new friends in the Vatican, as a maneuver to avoid a substantive response, and quash the argument?

The more you soft-liners talk, the more you resemble Campos.

It reminds me of watching Luke Skywalker turn into Darth Vader

No it is not a question of hijacking the thread. I will respond to the other issues shortly.

However the fact remains, if nutcases and self appointed popes want to accuse the SSPX or Bishop Fellay of being a Judas, they need to look in the mirror first !

Now, back to the point. To respond to Seraphim.

1). As to the great divide in the SSPX - No contrary to what many want you to think. There isn't the greater number of superiors and priests are united with Bishop Fellay. The reason for the letter getting out is to try to muster support for opposition, but that isn't going to happen.

2). Granted.

3) I would say the contrary, even the Archbishop himself appealed to Rome to recognize his work. If that plea is being heard today, the Archbishop would gladly accept that. The never saw himself as above or independent from the Holy See. He simply did what he could given the fact the authorities turned a blind eye to his work.

 4). If a legitimate authority asks you to accept or do something which is not contrary to the faith; on what basis can you reject it without falling into the sin of true disobedience?

What is more is that it is sad to see so many on this forum who show total disrespect and ingratitude for the work of the SSPX and seem to make themselves it's judge. It kind of reminds me of what the Archbishop said in his time regarding this attitude - 'Contrary to what they say, the SSPX will simply follow the path of providence and not the false fancy of every man'.

 Still fixating on the quality of the deal, ratheer than asking why we are talking about a deal at all the doctrinal issues remain.

  Any talk of a deal while Rome is unconverted is an implicit acceptance of dogmatic pluralism in the Church.

  No Catholic, much less Archbishop Lefebvre, would stand for this!

Dear Seraphim, well, I really don't mean to be contentious here, but are you sure the Archbishop would have rejected a priori any offer whatsoever of canonical regularization?

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.

This is Bishop Fellay's own justification for being open to the possibility, through prayer and prudence, that this may be God's will - i.e. there are no prior grounds to think that it absolutely cannot be, nor did Archbishop Lefebvre say that he would absolutely refuse to consider it, even at that time. He merely said he would put the discussion on the doctrinal level, and this the SSPX under Bishop Fellay has done, and done, in my humble opinion, very well.

I think the virtue of prudence also calls for heeding the advice of one's confreres, and reasonable honesty with those souls under your pastoral care, and in this regard I feel Bishop Fellay should do more, without simply resorting to threats or appeals to obedience, to state plainly and clearly why he believes this is the course God is laying out for the Society.

Also, when you say again that nothing has changed regarding doctrine, I ask, what of the works of Msgr. Gherardini, Bishop Athanasius Schneider et al? Is the present environment at the least not a vast improvement from the Archbishop's day when many persons and groups were simply uninterested in discussing or considering doctrine at all?