So then you are saying that Fr. Hewko claims that no one should ever, under any circuмstances, speak to any church official in Rome?

Where does Fr. Hewko say anything like this?

Not "talk", but the practical agreement.  You're acting like a complete buffoon.

Here, for example:

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=26704&min=10&num=5

This edition of Eleison Comments frames the context of the recent remarks very well, if anyone will bother to compare.

What would be the sense?  Are they to form a group for the purpose of opposing Bishop Fellay, or would they form a true resitance and directly oppose the apostate Romans and heretical Bishops?
They do not need Roman approval for either purpose, that is unless they wish to form a formal religious congregation.
So which is it? He does not say.

If Bishop Williamson only wants to have a "loose association" with the resistance under his moral authority, that would seem to rule out the possibility of ever consecrating a bishop in the existing resistance. Without a bishop, the resistance is doomed for eminent failure unless they wind up reaching out to another group like the sedes for a consecration and that would undermine everything they stand for.

Why would it rule out the possibility of his ever consecrating bishops?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Centroamerica

Put it into context. He's talking about the pope calling him to give him a regularized position within the officially recognized Church. He's saying he would go to Rome to get it in writing if some miracle phone call giving free reign to Tradition took place.

Assuming people are reading and not skimming, everyone should know this.

For the record, if Bishop Fellay did this same thing (accepted a unilateral/one-sided official recognition and blessing from Rome, a rubber-stamp for all the SSPX is doing) no one would have had a problem with it -- least of all me.

Father Hewko rejected this kind of thinking out of hand.

Says you. Source?

I listened to the sermon posted in this sub-forum.  It's in there.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Father-Hewko-Whit-Saturday

I'm guessing that my comments about Bishop Williamson collecting money for a lavish residence may have been misconstrued.  I'm talking about the fact that it was touted as a kindof "headquarters" for the Resistance, but Bishop Williamson refuses to create any kind of true organization, so what kind of "headquarters" is needed?  This residence wasn't meant to be just living quarters for Bishop Williamson but a lot more than that.  To what end?

Perhaps a lost will to fight, or a realization that he does not want to be anything other than an SSPX Bishop?

The last group of ECs were focused on defending the R&R thesis against the Sede approach, but most of the defense was directed toward defending the Recognize aspect.  Now theorizing that one would need to seek recognition from the Conciliar sect is certainly, it would seem, an admission that it, (the sect), is the official Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo sect is the true Church with a bit of fruit bruising about its surface.

This is not a criticism, it is the reality that in R&R one must logically follow this course. If one recognizes it fully, then there can be no Conciliar or Novus Ordo church as such.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Put it into context. He's talking about the pope calling him to give him a regularized position within the officially recognized Church. He's saying he would go to Rome to get it in writing if some miracle phone call giving free reign to Tradition took place.

Assuming people are reading and not skimming, everyone should know this.

For the record, if Bishop Fellay did this same thing (accepted a unilateral/one-sided official recognition and blessing from Rome, a rubber-stamp for all the SSPX is doing) no one would have had a problem with it -- least of all me.

The issue is that, despite RUMORS to the contrary back in 2012, that is not what was on the table. Such a hypothetical is just that -- a hypothetical and a ridiculous, unrealistic pipe dream to boot.

The fact of the matter is, the SSPX is NOT contemplating such an "instant recognition from Rome with no obligations on our side". No, they are exiling priests, kicking out 25% of the bishops because of "politically incorrect beliefs", purging bookstores, changing official teachings on Vatican II, preaching pro-Vatican II, diverging from Abp. Lefebvre on many points including the Pope question, becoming dogmatic sedeplenists, chasing "numbers", human respect and fame with projects like the Disneyland seminary, etc.

So it's a moot point. The SSPX is already "giving" on its side -- it's not just receiving a unilateral recognition from Rome. It's too late for that.

If I went up to my neighbor and gave him $200 every day, trying to woo him into giving me his tractor, and after several months he finally gives it to me, can I really celebrate that I got a "free tractor"? Once I shell out the first several thousand dollars, it's no longer a "free tractor" even if the neighbor ends up giving it to me. Understand?

I mean, don't we all wish for such a sweetheart deal! But it can't happen now. The SSPX has already compromised in exchange (past tense).

So it's not a matter of principle then, is it?

It's obviously prudential if an agreement before Rome converts is worth pursuing, so long as it's the "right" deal.  A deal could be rotten, but the worst we could say about it is that it's imprudent or unwise in this particular instance, not that it's actually wrong or a matter of doctrine.  It all depends on what is given and what is taken.  The only point left for discussion is what the most prudent deal would be.

*woosh*

What was that?

Oh, that's just two years of resistance efforts flying past your ear at light speed and splattering against a brick wall.  

....

It's still unclear to me what +W meant in this video.  But the more I think about it, I don't see much of a difference between the two possibilities.  Initially it appeared that H.E. would actually accept incorporation into the New Church if it was under the pretense of "fixing the Church."  This is exactly what +Fellay was trying to do.  Starry eyed, naive and seduced by purple buttons he was eager to offer the SSPX as a sacrificial lamb to the New Church.  Remember, Fellay was dealing with Ratzinger, NOT Bergoglio-- they're substantially the same men, but Ratzinger retained a semblance and aura of traditionalism.  In other words, he *could* fool people.  Fellay was ready to make a deal with Ratzinger.  Now +W, according to this point of view, is ready to make a deal with Bergoglio?  Bergoglio doesn't fool anyone.  There's nothing Catholic about him at all.  +W identified that Ratzinger was a rat and a liar-- ergo, no dealing should be done with him.  Yet somehow Bergoglio is worthy of consideration?  It's insane.

Now, the second possibility is that H.E. means to say that if Bergoglio deputed him to start an irregular society, only then would he take charge.  This is of course, absurd if for no other reason that it makes no sense that even if Bergoglio was sincere, that he would actually insist that H.E. "fix the Church" in an irregular position.  That would be like Pius X hiring Eastern Schismatics to perform the functions of the Sodalitium Pianum.  It's just ridiculous.  

But even worse, H.E. has been a SSPX bishop for more than twenty years, and he has never been concerned with whether or not he had permission to perform any priestly or episcopal duties from whoever the current pretender on the papal throne was.  He didn't think he needed permission to solicit funds from the faithful for a place to live and house priests.  And now, suddenly, he needs permission from the very worst of them to be in charge of an organized priestly group?  Just what exactly justifies more than two decades of irregular activity, and only irregular activity, without concern for the permission of the local ordinary or the white cassock-- what justifies a career as a traditional cleric, but fails to justify being the leader of an organization that performs these tasks?  It is completely out at sea, it makes no sense at all.  +Fellay doesn't seem to have a problem heading the SSPX without Francis' blessing.  

But really, there's not much of a difference between these two possibilities.  Both possibilities hinge upon the approval of modernist heretics.  How utterly, utterly disappointing.  

I would love the down-thumber to point out what I'm missing.  I'm pretty disturbed at this situation, so if it can be shown what I've missed or not taken into account I'll be grateful.

You're not missing anything IMO.  There are some Resistance zealouts here who won't tolerate even legitimate criticism of what they hold to be holy.

Let's face it.  Bishop Williamson would not have done much had he not gotten booted on the grounds of Anti-Semitism.  He could have denounced Bishop Fellay much more strongly from the get-go, but for many months (maybe years?) while all this was going down he pussy-footed around the subject.