Quote from: Stubborn

I've never heard that one about the frog and the scorpion, but it sure fits!

That analogy was used by Fr. Damien Fox, SSPX, in a sermon in 2012.  He was immediately sent to St. Cesaire for 're-education'...

Yes, I heard the sermon.  I think it was linked on the OLMC website for a time.  And as I recall, it was in the same context, that is, that +Fellay won't make a bad deal.  Well, you would think the frog wouldn't make a bad deal, either, no?

The frog and the scorpion is one of the Aesop's Fables, a story for children.  

These and other politically incorrect children's stories have been expunged from modern libraries and avoided by liberals, so that their children are deprived of a wealth of important lessons which had enriched previous generations.

To be noted is how strict Sean is in including only verifiable accounts. He already suggests that his list of compromises could go on and on, and that is before testimonies which can not be verified.

For example, point #16
16) The US District Bursar posing for pics withan Ecclesia Dei priest at the Catholic Identity Conference in West Virginia (Can one imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending the Mass of an ICK priest, or posing for pics with them?);

It was reported on this site that this conference included a Mass celebrated with three priests -- FSSP, SSPX, and diocesan -- filling the roles of priest, deacon, and subdeacon. Sean inquired as to the truth of this report and received no response, so it did not make it to this list.

While I appreciate reports of both verifiable and unverifiable information, a list that includes only things which can be referenced to a source is very useful.

This isn't the exact version we have but close enough.

The Gingerbread Man

There’s nothing new here and there’s nothing from Mr. Johnson that can’t be easily rebutted. In fact most of this has been addressed before either here or on other forums. As a simple example, take #1. Here are the words of Archbishop Lefebvre 2 years after the consecrations:

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! (Archbishop Lefebvre, Two years after the Consecrations)

And here’s Bishop Williamson’s take on this quote:

“… In other words, what if Rome offered you a sweetie-pie solution? Answer: firstly, the Romans are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer, then we’ll think about it. …” (Bishop Williamson: 6th Bristol conference on SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome, 2’58” - 3’18”)

Now clearly if Archbishop Lefebvre had set this “pre-condition” in 1988 as Mr. Johnson alleges, he could never have entertained such an idea in 1990, yet he did and Bishop Williamson agrees that he did.

Also, concerning this so-called "pre-condition" the conversion of modernist Rome. I would ask the conversion from what to what, how is it to be judged and by whom? What are the concrete steps you want to see executed?

Henry, it won't be to difficult to see (no sarcasm intended here).  Rome will restore the Church to her former glory by once again adhering to the infallible teachings previously established.  Notably, the restoration of the True Mass, the exile of collegiality and religious liberty.  The recognition of the Catholic Church as the only Church founded by Our Lord for the salvation of souls, and the condemnation of false religions...just to name a few.

When you see the Church once again upholding her sacred doctrines then you will know that such a conversion is taking place.

Ekim, thanks but what you wrote doesn’t answer my question. I want to know the practical steps required. For example, you wrote “the exile of collegiality and religious liberty”, what does this mean ‘exile’ - the repealing of Vatican II and if so by whom?

Sean wrote in with a response to Henry04's rebuttal:


It was brought to my attention that someone posting as "Henry04" claimed to rebut two items in my article:
 
Firstly, it is claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre's 1990 comments (during his address to priests at Econe) disprove my contention that the Archbishop changed his prudential precondition for the acceptance of a practical accord after the 1988 episcopal consecrations, to the conversion of Rome.
 
Secondly, it is claimed that it would be impossible (or at least too vague a criteria) to know of what any such "conversion of Rome" would consist.
 
I would like to offer a couple comments on these rebuttals:
 
1) Firstly, I find the "blind spots" quite interesting, as the entire article Henry04 quotes from stands as a giant-sized indictment of Bishop Fellay's current orientation, highlighting the blatant contradictions in policy between Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen.  One would have thought that this article would have been avoided like the plague, by one trying to demonstrate a consistency between the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre and neo-Menzingen.  
 
I encourage all CI readers to read it in entirety here: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
 
2) Secondly, regarding the following quote from this article which Henry04 thinks refutes my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to entertain a practical accord after 1988 (and which he also cites Bishop Williamson as supporting):
 
"Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so."
 
Incidentally, Fr. Daniel Themann offered this same rebuttal in private correspondence a couple years ago.
 
Comments:
 
A) Archbishop Lefebvre is clearly dismissive of the idea.  Note the incredulity regarding the suggestion, indicated by the exclamation mark after the words, "let them first make us such an offer!"  
 
B) In other words, the Archbishop is not indicating his openness to the possibility (however far-fetched it seemed at the time), but rather expressing his astonishment, contempt, and dismissal of the idea (i.e., "Well first...).
 
C) The correctness of this interpretation is corroborated not only by the 1988 and 1991 Fideliter quotes provided in the original post, but also from quotes within this very address Henry04 is quoting from:
 
In all three accounts, the Archbishop makes it plain there can be no deal with unconverted Rome (Including this one from the article cited):
 
"I received a few weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, yet another telephone call from Cardinal Oddi:
 
'Well Excellency, is there no way to arrange things, no way [i.e., practical accord]?  I replied, 'You must change, come back to Tradition.  It is not a question of the liturgy, it is a question of the Faith.'"
 
So much for Archbishop Lefebvre's alleged willingness to accept a practical accord in 1990.
 
3) Regarding Henry04's second objection (i.e., that it is not possible to judge when Rome will have returned to tradition sufficiently to declare that Rome has converted):
 
Firstly, perhaps unwittingly, Henry04 is indicting Archbishop Lefebvre with imprudence for having set a benchmark or standard which can never be measured or ascertained.
 
Secondly, in all three articles (i.e., The two Fideliter articles from the original past, as well as the article cited above, which Henry04 is citing from), it is pretty clear that in Archbishop Lefebvre's estimation, the conversion of Rome entails it's movement away from the doctrines of Vatican II.
 
For example, in the 1988 Fideliter interview:
 
"If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
 
And again in the 1991 Fideliter interview:
 
"All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy."
 
And finally, in the 1990 Address to Priests cited by Henry04:
 
"Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point.
 
 and a couple sentences later:
 
"We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." (Citation above)
 
Therefore, for Henry04 to attempt to introduce some kind of vaguery into the question as to what constitutes "the conversion of Rome" strikes me a disingenuous, in light of the consistent post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre:
 
When Rome corrects Vatican II in light of tradition (and not according to the bogus hermeneutic of continuity), Rome will have converted.
 
This was the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, per the quotes and articles above.
 
So why is Menzingen departing from this path?  
 
Because they have lost supernatural faith in the eventual restoration of the Church.  This is what lies beneath all the shenanigans, and their working toward a practical accord (or more likely, a so-called "unilateral recognition" after sufficient compromise has assured Rome of the SSPX's new found harmlessness).  
 
But in pushing the pace ahead of Providence (which only 3 1/2 years ago rejected the last attempt at a naturalist solution), a chastisement of tradition, rather than a new springtime, will be the result.
 

Quote from: Ekim

Henry, it won't be to difficult to see (no sarcasm intended here).  Rome will restore the Church to her former glory by once again adhering to the infallible teachings previously established.  Notably, the restoration of the True Mass, the exile of collegiality and religious liberty.  The recognition of the Catholic Church as the only Church founded by Our Lord for the salvation of souls, and the condemnation of false religions...just to name a few.

When you see the Church once again upholding her sacred doctrines then you will know that such a conversion is taking place.

Ekim, thanks but what you wrote doesn’t answer my question. I want to know the practical steps required. For example, you wrote “the exile of collegiality and religious liberty”, what does this mean ‘exile’ - the repealing of Vatican II and if so by whom?

The only hope you have, Henry4, is in Vatican II.  You're putting your hope in the wrong place, though.

All of the Church's problems since 1962 are rooted right there, and Vat.II has clearly done nothing good for anyone, so why do you think it's redeemable, or your friend?  It was bad from the start and since it's the root of our troubles, the only way to set things right is to get free of the bad start.  

The Pope could do this but he would be met with a lot of opposition, just as ABL was met with a lot of opposition.  The difference would be that ABL wasn't the Pope.  

But there is an easier way.  The Pope doesn't have to take on this enormous battle alone.  He can invoke the far greater power of God Himself, by simply doing what God has asked of him to do, and with the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom we pray repeatedly in her Rosary, it can be done.  The practical steps required are simply this:  do what Our Lord said should be done.  As Our Lord told Sister Lucia regarding her Superior who had said she could do nothing by herself:  But with God's grace, you can do everything!

.

Yes.  By the Pope.

As +Fellay used to say....VII is like a pot of soup with a pinch of poison.  You can not trust that your spoonful will be safe.  You must throw out the entire pot.

That's the short answer.  Throw it out.  It's garbage.  That's what you do with garbage.

Entonces:

With Vat.II discarded, the Newmass has no basis, entonces se fue. Etcetera.

.