I am glad to see the Mr. McFarland saw my question and decided to answer it, as he makes it clear what is the mind-set of some of the current SSPX supports, which is blind obedience. I am sure he would say that the situation between the Archbishop and the Vatican is not the same as the Resistance Priest and the SSPX leadership, because the Archbishop was dealing with matters of Faith. So then the question is not whether or not the Resistance Priests are rebels, but whether the issues and circuŠ¼stances coming from the new position of "practical agreement before doctrinal agreement" constitutes a matter of Faith and/or Morals. If so, the the persists who left after 2012 are justified if not, then they are not justified. But, what if the priests, in good conscious, even if they were misinformed, truly believed that issues are matters of Faith? Thus you cannot judge them to be rebels unless you know their interior motives, which God will be the judge and not Mr. McFarland.
And if Mr. McFarland is reading, then would he care to explain the contradictions he made on the Remnant, which I previously mentioned:
"He is also the one who admitted on the Remnant Forum that his son (Fr. McFarland) confirmed that the SSPX will only ask for marriage jurisdiction to those who are most likely to give jurisdiction but that the SSPX will not ask for jurisdiction from hostile bishops. In that case, the SSPX will use Supplied Jurisdiction. However, he failed to mention that Pope Francis told Bishop Fellay, that if a bishop refuses to give jurisdiction, then he (Pope) will give it to the SSPX, thus Supplied Jurisdiction can no longer be used because the Pope already said he will give it, yet the SSPX will do what they want, proving that they are the ones denying the Pope's authority in practice while at the same time accusing the Resistance of not recognizing the Pope's authority."
Topic: The Resistance and Obedience (Read 1634 times)