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.
"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren--that is, for the Prostestants "
--Paul VI cited by L'Osservatore Romano 19 March 1965.
I rest my case.
Here is what Hoyos said: "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."
The cardinal is simply lying about the character of the conflict which was the result of a few priests only having written a letter to Ecclesia Dei. The reaction to the letter was prompt--within weeks. And this was despite the fact that the great majority of the priests were opposed to the liberal position and sided with Bisig.
The truth was the decision was IMPOSED on the fraternity. No amount of doubletalk can change the unvarnished truth--that Bisig was fired and a new superior general imposed on the Fraternity who was hand-picked by the modernists in Rome. And this had dire consequences a few years later when Rome pursued negotiations with the SSPX.