Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ultima ratio
It is ridiculous to think the Archbishop believed there was a state of emergency because of ignorance

There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was "assured" he would have received this bishop:

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.

Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th.


46 posted on 03/06/2005 6:24:50 PM PST by gbcdoj ("That renowned simplicity of blind obedience" - St. Ignatius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: gbcdoj

"There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was 'assured' he would have received this bishop."

Look, you're hopelessly obdurate and illogical. Why should it matter whether there was an objective state of necessity? What mattered was that the Archbishop believed there was a necessity. Nor should a temporary hopeful belief in a Vatican "assurance" obscure the fact that there was insufficient trust in Rome's sincerity in the long run. In fact the language of the Protocol Agreement itself only speaks of a "suggestion". We can play this game all night till the wee hours--it's futile. You are committed a priori to see only the Pope's point of view--which ignores Lefebvre's appropriate evocation of canon law. You try to ascribe culpable ignorance to the Archbishop--without any proof whatsoever. From my perspective you are part of the vicious smear that is ongoing, the lies that are continually spread against this fraternity of good priests.


51 posted on 03/06/2005 7:06:01 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson