Yes... but would it repair the damage done....

Ekim,

Not exactly - The reality is that nothing that the Archbishop stated in the Protocol was ever held by him to be unacceptable.

"I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course" (Conférence à Ecône, Colloques avec Rome, 125-B, June 9, 1988)

Neil Obstat

Well, both the objective facts and Archbishop Lefebvre would disagree with you on this point, but what would the Archbishop know, he isn't part of resistance.

Oh but he is, for it is his spirit and teaching that gives it life as it once did to his Society.

Sorry Johnnier. The Archbishop did infact retract his signiture.

The following is  written in the “Marcel Lefevbre” by + Tissier:

 “The Archbishop prayed with his head in his hands throughout the Rosary and Benediction in the chapel, sometimes sighing. Then without saying anything, he retired to his room. He did not sleep that night....Later he shared all this with his driver and confidant, Jacques Lagneau: ‘If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.’ The following day...he finished off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed to Fr. du Chalard: ‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb! ’ ”  pg 555

Also,

“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: ‘That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.’ ”      (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barroux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days,” Winter 1995)

Claudel, where does the Archbishop state in righting, as +Fellay does, that the New Mass is legitimate?  If the Supreme Pontiff legitimately promulgates a valid  law, we are all obliged to obey.  To do otherwise is an affront to Jesus Christ Himself.  A true act of schism.  The Archbishop NEVER said the New Mass was legitimate.  In this aspect +Fellay greately departs from the founder.

Ekim
 
Being dishonest will not get you anywhere. Even the Archbishop admitted that the Novus Ordo was promulgated by the Lawful authorities, is he by that saying it was thus good and binding up all? No, - And so your argument has no grounds. Regardless of how clearly I have spelled it out you don't want to admit the obvious.

As to the Protocol, while the Archbishop retract his signature he did thereby deny the truth of what he put down. He was an honest man. He would never sign something he thought to be wrong. - Interesting here, since as such Bp. Fellay has signed nothing that has come from the Vatican, while the Archbishop did, but no one wants to make any claims that the Archbishop was therefore evil and to be rejected.  A case of selective reading it seems.

"Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice." (commentary on the May 6 letter by Fr. Laisney: Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN, 1988)

"In that letter of May 30, 1988, by asking for “a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates,” Cardinal Ratzinger practically rejected all the candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. That was the real cause of the break of negotiations." (commentary on the May 30 letter by Fr. Laisney: Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN, 1988)

"I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course" (Conférence à Ecône, Colloques avec Rome, 125-B, June 9, 1988)

I think the position of the resistance is becoming more and more clearly one of dishonesty and one that is foreign from that of the Archbishop.

Mac,

I hope that answer your question about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and what sense it is to be understood by the SSPX and the Superior General. '

As to your specific question. - For my part no I don't see any heresy in the doctrinal declarations of the Superior General or the SSPX. If you want to point them out to me, I would be glad to discuss them with you.

As for his private letter to his fellow bishops, that was private correspondence. I can respect that fact, even if others can't. If Bp. Williamson or anyone else for that matter wants to write the Superior General a public letter and make it public, well good for him, but if such a person can't respect private correspondence, well, what can I say for such a one?

As a good priest recently pointed out to me, anything other than heresy does not give anyone the right to rebel against his superiors, otherwise we introduce the rule of anarchy into the Church. Never in the history of the Church has the Church praised rebellion when there hasn't been sufficient grounds for. Contrary to this, the Church has always condemn all such rebellions/schisms etc as being contrary to will God and His Church.

Just read the lives of the saints, many a time their superiors were mistaken, and did things to them which were not just and for all that they did not rebel but remain humble and faithful, for unless it is a question against the faith, obedience is called for. - Apply the same logic in your own home. It isn't that difficult.

No one in the resistance would say that they have always agreed with everything that Bp. Williamson has ever written or done, and yet for all that when he was a superior in the SSPX no one would have held that just because someone disagreed with something he has said/written that it is sufficient grounds for rebellion. To me it seems that the resistance isn't able to see beyond the personal dislike for Bp. Fellay, and this becoming clearer in the insulting way they speak about him.

Be it far from anyone to insult clergy in such a way, SSPX or otherwise. The mocking tone in which some here even speak about the Pope is all out of place. He still has a dignity which is far beyond that of any one of us here. You can't embrace the Novus Ordo attitude towards authority, just because you may not agree with them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"The Catholic faithful have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they have recourse are not in communion with a counterfeit Church which is evolutionary, pentecostalist, syncretist." Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops.  Econe; 6 July, '88)

Johnnier,

(My name is actually Machabees; not Mac please.  That would be a slang of a person's name.)

My question for you was NOT about any "heresy" in Bishop Fellay's 3-Docuмents.  My question for you is:

Do you, or do you not, agree with and consent with Bishop Fellay's stated contents within these 3-main Docuмents? (Bishop Fellay's return letter of April 14, 2012 to the 3-SSPX Bishops, Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, and Bishop Fellay's 2012 SSPX General Chapter's Docuмent with its 6-conditions).

As all Catholics must obey the Faith first, and not even an angel can change it, the Prelates and consecrated souls of the Church have a duty to protect and teach the perennial Faith without changing or admixing it.  So too, God has made them as public figures in the visible Church to do His (missionary) work.  We must obey them in all things less sin.  Sin includes what is against Divine Law, Church Law, the Morals of the Church, heresy (material and formal), and so on.  Our Lord has showed us many times in the New Testament that it is important to know what is in the mind of the "Pharisees"; less you follow the blind.

There is NO Docuмent or letter in the world that can be allowed to be a "secret" and hide what is in the mind of one, or more, of these prelates and consecrated souls to have a duplicity of Faith and Morals; as to pretend it differently to the flock entrusted to him.

As it is true, the duplicit and scandalous contents of Bishop Fellay's Letter to the other 3- SSPX Bishops, whom he has charge over, and acted as a Superior General over them, with his two official advises, had corresponded with weighted influence on his [subjects] with a striking departure from the positions previously held within the SSPX, into a different teaching; which continues to this day.  In addition, it is a 180 degree departure from what Bishop Fellay has recorded in many of his prior conferences, interviews, and in his Letter to Benefactors.

As the above quote from Archbishop Lefebvre highlighted in blue states, we faithful have a strict right to know what teachings are being taught differently, and by whom.  Therefore, I agree of what is a "letter" can be to someone as private; however, if what is in that "letter", coming from one of the public leaders of the Church, and contains a departure from what was taught, it is an obligation to know, study, and correct it.  As with the scandalous continuities of the other 2-Docuмents, CNS interviews, and other conferences of duplicity coming from Bishop Fallay that puts in danger and jeopardizes the Perennial Catholic Faith of Tradition.

So yes, Johnnier, you do have an obligation to understand and study the (modernist) contents of what was communicated in that April 14, 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay, as with his other recent works; it is proven to be his agenda all through out, as with the other superiors of the SSPX, which is putting in danger and thus undermining the Traditional Catholic Faith that they want to put under the modernist Authorities within conciliar Rome.

It is very simple.  It is a question of protecting the Faith; in which Bishop Fellay has proven many times that he wishes to compromise it; like so many other prelates and consecrated souls have done before him over the last 50-years of Vatican II especially.

Johnnier, you need to be honest with everything Bishop Fellay has said and written, it tells the whole story; NOT what you wish to pick and choose from it in order to suit it up under a guise of "authority and obedience".  That is what the mode of operation of Vatican II is.

Either Truth is first, or it is not.  

My question still remains for you.  Please re-read and study Bishop Fellay's Docuмents closely.  God provided that one does not need to be a "theologian" to understand that there is within them serious compromises and a grave danger to protect the Faith; as with, if the contents of those Docuмents are continued to be followed through with, there will be no turning back; like Campos, FSSP, and the rest.

Lastly, as we are baptized faithful, and not a "member" of the SSPX, we still have an obligation in our Baptism to call out anyone who puts in danger the Catholic Faith.  Bishop Fellay or not.  Hence the Catholic Resistance was organically born over the whole world; as like any other time in history when the Faith was under attack.

No more excuses please...Bishop Fellay can make clear anytime he wants to and formally retract his statements; as like the other superiors.  It is [he] who is causing the division of the Faith; not us.  

We are in a fight where many souls are perishing from such duplicity and ambiguity.

Let your speech be SI SI...NO NO.

Claudel my friend … you've taken on a rather pompous and authoritarian tone.  I will no longer be addressing you in this forum. …

Since most of my flesh-and-blood friends don't routinely call me "pompous and authoritarian," I think I can endure living in the shadows of your silence and displeasure. We all have our crosses to bear.

To say, in parting, what I said before in terms you might find easier to comprehend, your questions to me were pointless and, thus, rather rude because they had no basis in the substance of my comment. You seemingly are determined to prate on about "legitimacy" till the cows come home, despite the fact that ++Lefebvre was hardly at all distressed about legitimacy in any context and, as regards the Novus Ordo mass, his gripe with it had nothing whatsoever to do with legitimacy. If you are going to nail +Fellay to the wall, as I gather you wish to do, you'll have to find him saying or writing that, contrary to ++Lefebvre, he thinks the new mass is licit.

In short, until you get your facts straight, you will aid neither the mainstream SSPX cause nor the Resistance cause. That this doesn't seem to trouble you in the least makes your comments not worth the loss of the time required to read them.

You should step aside, return to the TV room, and let the grown-ups quarrel.