for every time an Accordista (pro-agreement with Rome) expressed the belief that the agreement entails NO substantial changes for the SSPX apostolate -- in other words, the Pope is prepared to offer the SSPX "full liberty".

For example, just a few hours ago:

when in comes to accepting visible union with the Vicar of Christ, even if full liberty is granted to the SSPX, they prefer schism.

People who say such things are BLIND. They don't even have their eyes open. I really don't care anymore who thinks I'm being harsh, dictatorial, etc. If this is the willful blindness we're dealing with, I have to be harsh. As Fr. Chazal said, this is War. War for the heart of the SSPX. He also said it was going to be a hot summer.

I just addressed this issue LAST NIGHT for Brainglitch, but apparently "Roland Deschain" missed it. And it's been addressed countless times on CathInfo -- the agreement itself has been posted, we've worked out logically what MUST be in the agreement based on the SG's behavior, etc.

We've also applied common sense to the issue.

There is NO chance that the agreement is a blank check, "rubber stamp" of the current SSPX apostolate.

Again, for the slow ones:
If that were true, the Pope would just approve us unilaterally (on his side), and be done with it. Why the need for negotiations and signatures on "doctrinal preambles"? Obviously some compromises will be called for.

And whence comes this hope? Will the accordistas show me JUST ONE CASE where the Pope has given full freedom to a traditional group? He is one of the worst enemies of Tradition -- I don't know where he gets this reputation of being Tradition's best friend, and a poor prisoner of the Vatican.

Mea Culpa for speaking in anger on the other thread.

 :cheers:

Waiting, not believing every rumor, giving Bishop Fellay the benefit of the doubt until concrete evidence to the contrary comes out and praying for a good outcome are anathema I see.

Sad, really.

No, it's sad that people like yourself have adopted an ostrich's attitude when it comes to evaluating the current situation. At this point, the contents of Bishop Fellay's "deal" with Rome take second stage to the words that have already come out of his mouth (assuming you do not characterize his recent videos, interviews and public statement as mere "rumors"). Have you heard what he said about the acceptance of Vatican II, religious liberty and such? Did you read his letter to the other three bishops? If you have, and yet still claim that you're trying to keep an "open mind," then we know all that's needed about your true orientation in this matter.

Face it: you're for an SSPX-Vatican accord -- but you're still trying to maintain the "high ground" of "open-mindedness." I ain't buying it.

 :pop:

There is NO chance that the agreement is a blank check, "rubber stamp" of the current SSPX apostolate.

Again, for the slow ones:
If that were true, the Pope would just approve us unilaterally (on his side), and be done with it. Why the need for negotiations and signatures on "doctrinal preambles"? Obviously some compromises will be called for.

And whence comes this hope? Will the accordistas show me JUST ONE CASE where the Pope has given full freedom to a traditional group? He is one of the worst enemies of Tradition -- I don't know where he gets this reputation of being Tradition's best friend, and a poor prisoner of the Vatican.

Where does he get this reputation of being Tradition's best friend?

He gets it from the Liberal propaganda mouthpieces, "teachers" who dish out the goods that the MSM repeats robotically, because it fits their agenda.

In fact, I recall them saying that JPII was a poor prisoner of the Vatican and Tradition's best friend. They even said this about Paul VI and John XXIII.

How could they say JPII was a "prisoner" when he traveled the world monthly or more? They claim it is an ideological prison, that he can't say what he really wants to say.

Actually, the erstwhile Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was such a "teacher." And one of his teachers was his mentor, Karl Rahner.

This is one of the errors of Russia Our Lady of Fatima predicted would be spread throughout the world. Propaganda, like bad news, spreads fast because it is "fables."

3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables (II St. Paul to Timothy iv. 3-4).

Fables. They spread fast because the listeners have itching ears. They desire to be told fables and propaganda.

He may really be "open-minded".  Of course, as Bishop Sheen once said, and I paraphrase what he said in a conference I once heard on tape, the problem with so much open-mindedness is that your brains end up falling on the floor.

...falling in a ditch = brainditch

There is NO chance that the agreement is a blank check, "rubber stamp" of the current SSPX apostolate.

Exactly.






(Or at least, certainly not a blank check for the way the SSPX apostolate was before the muzzling.)

If the SSPX places themselves under the direct control of the Pope, they must needs compromise on something because this pope still lauds Vatican II.  The pope will have a say in something or another that will not be pleasing to many in the SSPX.

Even if Benedict XVI is completely and absolutely amenable to what the SSPX faithful wish, and gives them an irrefragable and definite authorization to do what they deem fit, one problem remains:

The N.O. does not seem to understand the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as the Vatican Council defined it. They have this "collegiality" notion that the Roman Pontiff, together with the aggregate of the Bishops, rules and guides the Church of Christ: to what degree individual clergymen may espouse this at the theoretical level is a moot point, because it is evident that in the practical order this novel ecclesiology is the norm that determines the behavior of the N.O. bishops at large. The N.O. bishops will do as they please, no matter what Benedict may say: and it is clear that the N.O. bishops at large have an animosity against anything resembling traditional Catholicism.

I do not think that the same N.O. bishops who have opposed any concession on the part of the Vatican to what the SSPX has to say would allow the SSPX to function as it has done independently.

The 'collegiality" notion is even more disastrous because the bishops' autocratic spirit has rubbed off on the priests at the parochial level. Ever since I could remember, my former pastor at the N.O. did and said whatever he pleased at the N.O. services, so that the leaflets that were passed out were basically useless. Many people have told me they have noticed similar behavior.

Speaking of the N.O. predicament at the parochial level, the official translations of the N.O. rites may have become more conservative, but there is still a culture of married deacons, female altar servers, lay "Eucharistic ministers," &c., that makes any substantial attempt to return to the teachings of the Tridentine Council self-defeating. Words like "sacrifice" may have no meaning to one who has been indoctrinated in the N.O.'s novel methodology and orientation of catechizing. This is at least my observation from what I have seen at the local N.O. services in my area.