1. "So - only the SSPX is traditional. All others are modernist heretics. Thus - the SSPX is the Church. This is quite foolish."
Not at all. Most bishops today are modernists to one extent or another, and so support the modernist heresy. This is why it is accurate to say only traditionalist bishops are fully Catholic. That is to say, only those bishops who hold onto the authentic faith transmitted to them through the apostles. All others, to one extent or another support novelties which have already been condemned by preconciliar popes--most especially the syncretic and indifferentist policies of the present Pontiff. They subscribe to the bogus pan-religious "civilization of love" preached by JPII, or at the very least an interchurch "unity through difference" that subverts the uniqueness of the Catholic faith. And they support the Novus Ordo which is the vehicle for undermining that faith.
2. "The Protocol was a commitment. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who backed out, insisting that the Pope ordain all three of his chosen bishops. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to submit candidates to Rome, even though he admitted privately that there were many traditionalists whom Rome would accept as bishop. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who couldn't wait 45 days until August 15th for his bishop."
There never was a fixed August 15th date. You snatched this out of a letter by the Archbishop, and did so out of context. The whole import of the letter was to underscore the runaround Rome was giving him by neither fixing the date nor finding any of his candidates acceptable. In fact, the draft letter, written by Ratzinger's own secretary for the Archbishop to sign, makes no mention of any date nor any name--nor even if any consecration would be allowed at all. But the quarrel in the end was not about dates or names. The quarrel was about the faith itself, and whether the Archbishop could trust Rome not to sabotage Traditional Catholicism in the name of its newly-minted conciliar religion. Here is Lefebvre in his own words:
"'And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?' Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. 'That I might recognize my errors' means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!
"That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
"This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: 'We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.' This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.
"It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call 'Operation Survival,' operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed 'Operation Suicide.' There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church."
So the issue is joined. It is a question of whether the Pope is Lord of Catholic Tradition, or whether he is merely its servant. Put another way, whether a pope may invent his own religion, or whether he must be subject to Catholic Tradition like all others in the Church.
3. "Fr. Josef Bisig was not 'fired' by Cardinal Castrillon, and to suggest that he was dismissed from his post is to sully the reputation of the Fraternity’s founding Superior General. Father Bisig had reached the end of his term of office, and had said more than once that he was content not to be re-elected. One of the very purposes for which the General Chapter had come together was to elect a Superior General. Thus, to claim that 'Hoyos fired Bisig, disallowing his or anyone else’s canonical election' would logically mean that the Cardinal also fired every other Fraternity member."
This is a flat-out lie--sheer damage control put out by the new superior, hand-picked by Rome and a man who was out of sync with the majority of priests in his own Fraternity. Bisig was elected legally--then fired! Here is Cardinal Hoyos in his own words in the letter that gave him the ax:
"The first decision is of nature legal: Your constitutions, which were approved 'AD experimentum', leave open the question of the number of years that a General Superior is to fill. It seems reasonable to limit that to two 6 year, each one, i.e. with a maximum of 12 years, in harmony with the majority of the others religious institutes....two 6 year mandates each one, following itself. This papal commission thanks Father Bisig, which fulfilled these functions during 12 years, for all that it did for what he did for the Fraternity, which owes him, during the period of beginning of its history, its consolidation and its extension in several countries, which is the fruit of its extreme zeal, and of its requirement of personal and collective sanctification.
"The second decision is as folows: You know that in 1991, Cardinal Innocenti, who was then president of this papal Commission, had named General Father Bisig as Superior, for one 3 year additional period, in spite of a vote of the general Chapter which deviated some. The situation of conflict in your institute currently requires a similar intervention from higher authority, in proportion to the danger when an election is with source of divisions even major [ones]. This is why, I name Supérieur General of Fraternity, Father Arnaud Devillers, for one 6 year mandate. Father Devillers filled the requirements, and knows your fraternity intimately. He has long experience as the person in charge for the district of North America, that he founded, and which has [existed?] in several American dioceses, always maintained good co-operation with the local bishops.
"His first task will be to restore the peace of your Fraternity, while working to preserve your common spirituality, like reinforcing your spirit of family."
So, despite the fact that Father Bisig was duly elected, and despite the fact that the constitution of the FSSP put no limit on the number of terms he might serve, Hoyos decided UNILATERALLY to impose a two-term limit on Bisig and sacked him outright. Then, instead of calling for a new election, he HAND-PICKED his successor.
Now you understand why Rome is not trusted by SSPX. Even the excuse made that Bisig was not "deposed" but that his "term expired" is a lie--a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened. If the case was as presented by Rome, why was not another election held? The truth was that Bisig was too traditional and so were most of the priests of the fraternity; whereas Devillers was more liberal and more malleable. So he was imposed on the fraternity.
4. "No, it's 'superseded' by your mistaken understanding of Canon Law. There was no ignorance, since Msgr. Lefebvre had been informed concerning the non-existence of the 'state of necessity'"
Do you think the Pope's telling the Archbishop that there was no emergency would have alleviated his fears, given that the Pope was actively pursuing the very agenda that alarmed him?
Here is what the canon says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4°).
Clearly Lefebvre had such a great fear. The fact that the Pope said it did not exist could not in any way alleviate it. Why? Because the Pope himself was the cause of this fear, especially when the Archbishop considered his bizarre behavior at Assisi. In truth, the fact that the Pope did not see any crisis in the Church and proceeded blithely along as if all were well even as the walls of the Church were everywhere crumbling around him, only added to the Archbishop's fears! It made the consecrations even more imperative!
Continuously you make this ridiculous assertion. Somehow a Mass which is totally unacceptable to Protestants - a rite which reaffirms the sacrificial nature of the Mass, is somehow a "vehicle for undermining" the faith, instrincally evil and sacrilegious. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter remains, no matter how much you deny it:
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. (ICEL Eucharistic Prayer III)
What about the bishops of Eastern Rite Churches? Do they support the Novus Ordo too?
There never was a fixed August 15th date. You snatched this out of a letter by the Archbishop, and did so out of context.
It's from his interview in "Fideliter", and it's quite clear what happened. After Msgr. Lefebvre's letter withdrawing his acceptance, Cardinal Ratzinger assured him that he could have a consecration on August 15th and asked him for new candidates.
That is when, after signing the protocol, which paved the way for an agreement, I sat down and thought. The accumulation of distrust and reticence impelled me to demand the nomination of a bishop for the 30th of June from amongst the three dossiers which I had left in Rome on the 5th of May. Either that, or I would go ahead and consecrate. Faced with such a choice, Cardinal Ratzinger said, "If that's how it is, the protocol is over. It's finished, and there is no more protocol. You are breaking off relations." It's he who said it, not I.On the 20th of May, I wrote to the Holy Father, telling him that I had signed the protocol but that I was insistent upon having bishops, and bishops on the 30th of June.
But in fact there was no way of coming to an agreement. While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican.
In fact, the draft letter, written by Ratzinger's own secretary for the Archbishop to sign, makes no mention of any date nor any name--nor even if any consecration would be allowed at all.
The draft letter is clear that there would be a consecration, and soon.
Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future?
The "I leave to" was simply to prevent Msgr. Lefebvre from rushing off and immediately consecrating someone like Fr. Willamson as his bishop.
I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors
A total misrepresentation of the letter.
Most Holy Father, it is this good of the Church that I have pursued in all conscience in the sight of God during these past years through much suffering. However, I know that even in good faith, one can make mistakes. Therefore, I humbly ask you to forgive all that in my behavior or that of the Society may have hurt the Vicar or Christ or the Church, and on my part, I forgive from the depth of my heart what I had to suffer.
We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands
So Msgr. Lefebvre cannot abide being under the authority of the Apostolic See. Here is the schism for you.
If the case was as presented by Rome, why was not another election held?
Exactly for the reason stated in your quote.
The conflict-ridden situation of your Fraternity presently demands a similar intervention of superior authority, in view of the danger that an election could become the source of even more profound divisions.