It doesn't matter if Archbishop Lefebvre signed all docuмents. Let's bear in mind, hindsight is 20/20. It took time after the Council to see the rotten fruits of some of those docuмents. He couldn't fathom that those docuмents could be so problematic at the time of signing them. But again it doesn't matter because his whole apostolate after the Council militated against the reforms and theological problems flowing from the Council. At least give him some credit for being really the sole bishop to speak out AGAINST the Council.

How does one take a single piece of advice from Bishop Williamson in 2015 to make him out to be an advocate of the New Mass? His whole life and teaching -- among other things -- has shown that he is AGAINST the New Mass and its deviations from an orthodox understanding of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Publicly, his material has been available since 1985 when Bernard Janzen first interviewed him. Just look at all of his Rector's Letters and his sermons and doctrinal sessions to show that it is definitely not far to say he is some sort of advocate of the New Mass.

*not fair to say

Yet more diversion and sidestepping, Why did the Archbishop sign the docuмents if he was so theologically astute?

And yes it does indeed matter whether or not he signed them.

How so? I think there were a handful of bishops who didn't sign some of the docuмents. Can you even name them? What did they do? My point still stands. You are looking back 50 years and implying (I think) that he lacked judgment because he signed the docuмents. What exactly are you trying to say then?

Similarly don't condemn Bishop Williamson for some statement he made in 2015 when his whole priestly life shows that he understands the theological problems of the New Mass.

Precisely, while those who did not sign them completely capitulated to conciliarism.

JPaul is an idiot.

Worse: An idiot with an agenda.

I wouldn't call him an idiot but I am not sure what he is trying to prove. 

I wouldn't call him an idiot but I am not sure what he is trying to prove.

OK, I'll call him an idiot, and you can call him lost and confused.

No.

Matthew already pegged him perfectly.

He's an amateur complainer.

Grumpy Smurf.

Stands for nothing, and opposes everything.

Probably a communist  ;D

I just don't understand that while the need is for men to do something constructive for a restoration (within each of our means) we have people who are nitpicking on things which needn't be criticized when taken from a higher view. No wonder nothing gets done!

Signing the docuмents may have been a mistake, but it was also a matter of legal formality.  V2 was unlike any other ecuмenical council in the way that it was administered, voted upon and implemented.  V2 was a disorganized media circus.  I’ll cut +ABL a lot of slack here.  

Let’s get back to the important topic, the new mass...

The takeaway from Sean's method of discussion:

Without that, I see no reason to consider your opinion over that of the most prominent bishop in the last 100 years (and perhaps in the entire 2000 year history of the Church).

JPaul is an idiot.  (insert anyone else who disagrees with him)

Worse: An idiot with an agenda.

SJ:You can pretty much guarantee that JPaul will spend his whole life sulking, without ever having made a positive contribution to the Church..

This is interesting.  JPaul makes no "positive contribution to the Church."  But SJ, by contrast, must think he makes enormous(?) positive contributions to the Church.  Just what are they?  I'm willing to listen to SJ explain to us what exactly they are.  We need to listen to folks who help the Church be better.