The entire foundation of the resistance is one of opinion. It is the opinion that the Archbishop would not have followed the path that Bishop Fellay chose to take. The priests of the resistance have been disobedient to the SG in the name of this opinion; not the path the Archbishop would have taken.

Quote

One of the problems in all of the discussions here on IA (and I presume on other sites as well) is the diversity of opinions on a starting point for following the Archbishop – until a clear understanding of each person’s opinion is established, we will continue going around in circles because similar arguments are being used with multiple understandings.

John De Lallo is wrong in his post, though he is correct in his paragraph I quoted above.

IA now is about making the same arguments with the same people and covering the same ground. After a while it gets tiresome. Pro-Resistance and pro-Fellay posters really can't co-exist on a forum.

After a while it gets tiresome. Pro-Resistance and pro-Fellay posters really can't co-exist on a forum.

I am no fan of De Lallo. Never was.

My opinions, (or perception of the facts), are basically as follows. They are predicated upon a belief that the Superior General has deviated dramatically from the path of resistance to Rome, until Rome converts. Other events, as well, have come to light which further predjudices me against Menzingen:
1) The setting up of GREC as early as 1997, whose one goal, it seems, was to achieve some sort of reconciliation with Rome, not based solely upon the conversion of Rome to the true Faith.
2) The replacement of Bp. Williamson as rector in Winona in 2003, and shipping him off to an Argentinian backwater. ( I accepted this change of assignment at first, until it began to dawn that +Fellay's motives were just to get H.E. out of the way and bring in his own man.)
3) The 2006 General Chapter, affirming that no reconciliation was possible unless Rome converted; followed six years later by the 2012 General Chapter in which a totally compromised "six new conditions" were apparently ratified.
4) The misrepresentation of the event as a time where "profound unity" was reasserted, in light of reports that the proceedings were extremely chaotic. Bp. Tissier, according to Fr. Chazal, I think, said it was a "disaster."
5) The barring of Bp. Williamson from the GC of 2012, even though he was lawfully entitled to be there, and had not been expelled from the Society.
6) The infamous Swedish TV interview in 2009 wherein Bp. Williamson was subjected to a question concerning alleged "gas chambers," which he answered very honestly and according to the best information he had at the time
7) The subsequent slobbering over "our elder brothers,"conducted shamelessly by the Superior General, and the virtual abandonment of Bp. Williamson by Bernard Fellay and his confreres.
8) The coming to light in either 2009 or 2010 of an extremely suspicious "business" relationship between +Fellay and a shadowy figure with definite Zionist leanings, and a certain love for Israel.
9) The setting up of certain business investment accounts with said shadowy figure. Reportedly, only the GS and this financial advisor(?) of his can sign the checks of these accounts.
10) The submission to Rome, April 15, 2012 of a "Doctrinal Declaration," which in my opinion anyway, was a total departure from the course set by the Archbishop before his death. It represented, at best, the quest for a purely "practical accord" with Rome, sans any real doctrinal conversion on the part of the latter.
11) The assertion made later by Bp. Fellay that he had "withdrawn" the orginal Preamble- that followed just recently by his new assertion that the Preamble had been "renounced."
12) The June 30, 2012 letter from the pope clearly stating three essential conditions for total reintegration of the Society back into the church.
13) Followed, I think in Sept, 2012, by a statement in Australia, made by Bp. Fellay to the effect that he had been "deceived" by the pope. (I don't think that was the case. He knew exactly what the pope demanded.)
14) The final expulsion of Bp. Williamson from the Society, coupled with the expulsions of several other priests since 2010.
15) Troubling things said and written by such higher up as Fr. Rostand and Fr. Phluger. For example, when Fr. Rostand was here in Post Falls he affirmed that Society chapels are the property of Bp. Fellay. He said more directly as I remember: "These are the chapels of Bp. Fellay, and these are the priests of Bp. Fellay."

Will that do for starters?

Can he get a life for himself.He would get on well with "New Templar" Sort of the Irish version John De Lallo.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12634

Quote

It seems to me many of those proselytizing for the resistance have fallen into "noble cause corruption." So long as it can be used to promote/defend "the cause," or somehow cast a shadow on the SSPX, there is nothing that cannot be used - the ends then justifies the means.

The Archbishop always said his position was not one of "attack," but one of "defend." From the very beginning, the position of the resistance has been one of attack. I have said it before, but it is worthwhile repeating, proving your opponent's position false does not prove your position true (this applies to all positions in this crisis).

The entire foundation of the resistance is one of opinion. It is the opinion that the Archbishop would not have followed the path that Bishop Fellay chose to take. The priests of the resistance have been disobedient to the SG in the name of this opinion; not the path the Archbishop would have taken.

I do realize there are many who hold the opinion that anything before 1988 is irrelevant (somehow, the Archbishop could not get it right until the consecrations). I hold that this view is an inconsistent defense of the position of the former priests of the SSPX (based on their declaration). If the SSPX-SO has clearly defined their position to espouse this view I would like to see it – in fact, if they have defined their position clearly in any manner, I would like to see it. Until they define their stance (do they hold to the actions along with his words before 1988 or only after 1988), all I see are continual contradictions – using the past to defend the present while not allowing the present to condemn the past. Defending the Archbishop’s clarity of thought even though they hint he was confused until the consecrations of 1988. The Archbishop’s strength of character to stand up against the pressures of Rome, yet not having the strength of character to stand up to the pressures of his own priests - you get the idea.

One of the problems in all of the discussions here on IA (and I presume on other sites as well) is the diversity of opinions on a starting point for following the Archbishop – until a clear understanding of each person’s opinion is established, we will continue going around in circles because similar arguments are being used with multiple understandings.

john