[jlamos]

If you had placed an "in" in front of "sanity" I would agree with you.

I'm not saying Caminus is insane, but his post certainly was. Suggesting that people here - even Matthew - are participating in calumny.

I accidentally thumbed down the quoted post and my magic undo watch isn't working. Sorry.

:sad:

[Caminus]

Additionally, if one is to analyze objective reality, no attention should be paid to subjective intentions either on the part of Bishop Fellay or the Pope.  When the conversation devolves into such conjecture, the waters are muddied and great confusion is caused.  Remember, division is evil and if you are fomenting it in your own way, you are guilty of sin.  

[JPaul]

If that is true, then he should be ejected.  It's really very simple.  If it is evident beyond all doubt that the SSPX will be injured, such a course of action would be demanded.  I do not concede such is obvious at this point, we shall watch and pray.

I do not believe that the mechanism exists to eject him. He has sole control of the assets preventing the others from going on without him.

[JPaul]

Additionally, if one is to analyze objective reality, no attention should be paid to subjective intentions either on the part of Bishop Fellay or the Pope.  When the conversation devolves into such conjecture, the waters are muddied and great confusion is caused.  Remember, division is evil and if you are fomenting it in your own way, you are guilty of sin.  

Objectively, Bishop Fellay has not been honest with us . He has acted in ways of secreting and suppressing of information so as to justify holding him as a suspicious person. It is very unfortunate, but that is the case.
For years we have had to speculate, only because so much has been deliberately withheld from almost everyone and even by Bishop Fellay's own admission, from the other three Bishops.

There was no division before Bishop Fellay altered his positions and behaviours.
Please place the sin at the doorstep of the divider. This was the source, all else is a consequence.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

If you had placed an "in" in front of "sanity" I would agree with you.

I'm not saying Caminus is insane, but his post certainly was. Suggesting that people here - even Matthew - are participating in calumny.

I accidentally thumbed down the quoted post and my magic undo watch isn't working. Sorry.

:sad:

It's ok, jlamos. :)

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Caminus, I'd appreciate a response to the points raised in my post:

The reason people like Caminus are so supportive of Bishop Fellay and a deal with Rome is because they have a false concept of obedience. Just like the neo-cons claim we must always obey the Pope, certain SSPXers are under the mindset that they must always obey Bishop Fellay because he is the Superior General. If we can disobey Benedict, why can one not also disobey Fellay? Because he's (neo)Traditional?

I have read before why Caminus supports a "reconciliation" with Rome. I am going to attempt to debate Caminus on this in the most charitable yet serious matter possible. I invite him to respond to my points.

The following are essentially what Caminus and other pro-Bishop Fellay SSPXers believe:

1- The Society can go into Rome and help resolve the crisis in the Church
2- Archbishop LeFebvre would not have expected Rome to convert first in order to "reconcile" with them
3- Bishop Fellay is the Society's SG and must be trusted, for he is a Traditional Catholic of good will
4- There is no proof that Bishop Fellay has changed

Now, in response those four beliefs:

1- This is based more on hope and assumption rather than fact. The Society of St. Pius X has approximately 500 priests, compared to the thousands of combined Novus Ordo priests, bishops, and cardinals. Not to mention that the other three Bishops are in opposition to a deal, and in the event of a split, they would surely take some of those 500 priests with them. Given those facts, how can the Society hope to convert Rome when they are so small in size compared to Rome's numbers?

We must also recall what has happened to other Traditional groups who reconciled with Rome. The FSSP was promised a Cardinal and never received one, and Father Bisig was also removed from his position after several FSSP priests complained to Rome because Fr. Bisig wouldn't allow them to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Then there is the Institute of the Good Shepard, which was originally promised that they could reject Vatican II. Now Rome has informed them that they must accept it.

Finally, how can Benedict XVI be trusted? John Vennari made an excellent point recently that, if Benedict XVI truly desires the SSPX to come in to resolve the crisis in the Church as Fr. Rostand claims, why has Benedict appointed Cardinal Levada as the head of the Vatican office to "defend the faith"? The facts, then, all sway unanimously against a deal and the arguments proposed by those who are in favor of a deal

2- Completely false. Archbishop LeFebvre did sign a deal with Rome in 1988, but quickly withdrew his signature because he did not trust Rome after they wouldn't give him an exact date for the Consecrations of the four Bishops. Furthermore, Archbishop LeFebvre stated in 1978:

Quote:
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.  


3- As I stated above, if SSPXers disobey the man they regard as the Pope, why can they not disobey Bishop Fellay?

4- Also false. He has stated that he and the Society "misunderstood" much of Vatican II and that it is to be interpreted "in the light of Tradition". This is completely contrary to what he wrote in 2003, when he stated that he and the Society could not reconcile with Rome yet because Rome had not showed definitive signs of change. They still haven't, yet Fellay falls for the same traps that MANY other "conservative" Novus Ordites, semi-Trads, and even some Traditional Catholics do, in thinking that Benedict is a "friend of Tradition".

So, the conclusion is obvious: a deal in these circuмstances would be a striking departure from the mission of Archbishop LeFebvre.

[Matthew]

You also must remember that supposing Bishop Fellay accepts a faulty canonical offer, objectively speaking, if nothing actually changes at your chapel viz. the faith and its practice, you would have no grounds for "leaving" and would consequently become a schismatic for refusing communion with other Catholics, like sedevacantists.  We don't determine where we attend Mass on "theoretical" grounds, but on concrete circuмstance.  

Of course I'm not going to run off just for the fun of it. Where I live, there aren't any other viable options. There's an "indult" but not a very advanced or developed one. The indult here is headed by a priest from a very small (as in, fewer than 5 members) order that is conservative in some ways but dabbles in the Charismatic movement!

But if there were a "hard liner" chapel set up and I left my current chapel to go there, there would be no sin. It would be a matter of preference where I go. The SSPX isn't the Church, remember. It's not like I'm leaving my Parish for an independent chapel (which requires a good reason) -- I'd be leaving one independent chapel for another independent chapel.