CathInfo.com

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).

On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecuмenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

who you ask, I guess.  

ETA: If a "deal" with Rome is acceptable before it converts, then the whole "principle vs. prudence" canard is just that, a canard.  There is no principle by which a deal cannot be reached before Rome converts, it's just a question of how prudent such a deal would be.

I'm sorry that no one had responded to all the comments and confusions that you, Grahmam, and others posted here. I think that Matthew and others grew exhausted with having to explain and explain and s-p-e-l-l-e-v-e-r-y-t-h-I-n-g-o-u-t-f-o-r-y-o-u, but the general assumption is this:

If Francis calls +Williamson and is ready to give him free reign in the Church and restore the Church in every diocese, then he would have already converted. There will be no deal, no deal will be necessary. The resistance has always claimed this. There is no need to negotiate with Rome, when modernist Rome converts they will realize that Tradition is correct and take the necessary steps to ending the crisis. (Written permission authorizing Bishop Williamson to function within the dioceses would only be given to +Williamson after a conversion of Rome!)

I think that sometimes the subjects and topics that Mons. Williamson discusses are too difficult for some of the posters on this thread. If you look back through starting with what was quoted from + Williamson all the way to this comment, you will see a pattern of the same people being confused and taking simple phrases and isolating them out of context and trying to microanalyze them to say something "horrible" and then not quite understanding any of the discussion.