With enough money in a safe Swiss bank and a portfolio of solid investments, the Society can carve out a profitable enterprise by salvaging the best pickings from the old church likely to appeal to a higher order of 'friend and benefactor' and show great indifference to the dross that dares to inconvenience its elitist proceedings. Bp. Fellay, the CEO of SSPX Corp., acts in the same way as any top European bureaucrat or bank executive (without the Jєωιѕн name) as he manipulates, lies, deceives and plots his way into some new 'religious' entity in the making. A merger with another delinquent enterprise down the road in Rome may be of their mutual benefit if it can fool even more Catholics into believing something that was abandoned a long time ago.

What causes you to interpret it as "fear of scrutiny"?  

There is no other explanation for keeping it secret, other than that they are afraid people will comment on it.  The excuse given by Bishop Fellay is that the Pope is afraid of the "progressives" commenting on it.  But since he won't even give the text to his own priests, and they seem to resist the agreement so far, it's pretty clear that there is a fear of scrutiny even by his fellow priests.

Catholic doctrine isn't a secret of the lodge, but it might as well be, if you accept the mysterious prating of neo-modernist theologians, I don't know who can fully understand it without some sort of training in the field.

You try to personalize this but the simple fact is that the teachings of Catholic doctrine concern everyone, they aren't a matter to keep secret, and those who say it's "none of the laity's" business what points of Catholic doctrine are being proposed and negotiated behind closed doors apparently don't understand the purpose of the SSPX, which isn't about coming to secret agreements behind closed doors with modernists.

This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed.  These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable.  The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.

You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Telesphorus

This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed.  These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable.  The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.

You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...

The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes.  That's negotiation.

Yep. :rahrah:

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Telesphorus

This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed.  These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable.  The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.

You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...

The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes.  That's negotiation.

No, that's called correcting the Vatican and setting forth one's position.  By your standard, any kind of interaction must be construed as "negotiation" or "compromising."  One wonders how you can even engage in debate without falling under the sword of your own self-sustained delusion.  

Your reply to my post was but a regurgitation of your previous statement so I really don't see any need to further engage.  Your imagination is second only to the artifically verbose and affected "Wessex" whose concocted posts are barely intelligible but nevertheless flow from a fecund, albeit dark, imagination.  

Details? What are those businesses?

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Telesphorus

This isn't a private debate of theologians who have the same Faith trying to determine how Church teachings can be properly expressed.  These are two sides, negotiating Church doctrine, coming at the question from positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable.  The reason to keep it secret is to conceal the fact that there are negotiations going on - doctrine can't be negotiated.

You don't know that doctrine is being negotiated Tele...

The Vatican sends a draft, the SSPX sends back suggested changes.  That's negotiation.

No, that's called correcting the Vatican and setting forth one's position.  By your standard, any kind of interaction must be construed as "negotiation" or "compromising."  One wonders how you can even engage in debate without falling under the sword of your own self-sustained delusion.  

Your reply to my post was but a regurgitation of your previous statement so I really don't see any need to further engage.  Your imagination is second only to the artifically verbose and affected "Wessex" whose concocted posts are barely intelligible but nevertheless flow from a fecund, albeit dark, imagination.  

Nice try, Caminus.

"A rose by any other name is but a rose just the same."

Bishop Fellay is given a preamble in which he is asked to accept the new catechism, etc.  

If he accepts it, there is no negotiation.

If he sends something else back, it is negotiation.