Replies

To explain point by point, for the sake of those who love to not get it and to come to their lame conclusions.

1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.

This one obviously requires assent. Any Catholic who does not lend assent to this has immediately put themselves outside the Church. So what's the problem? With the statement itself, none. Absolutely none. But whoever put this list together puts this at the top of the list in order to abuse authority and attempt to coerce the Lefebvre into a nebelous assent to the four items which follow it. Continuing:

"2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it."

There is in fact a doctrine in Lumen 25. More properly stated, Lumen 25 tries to restate an already known and defined doctrine. Problem is, Lumen Gentium 25 poorly restates the doctrine. Lumen 25 is the very source of this funny new twist of what the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium means. It leads people to believe that the ordinary magisterium has an infallibility of a character which extends beyond it's real and true extent, which true extent is this: the ordinary magisterium is infallible insofar as it teaches already known infallible doctrine. The Spirit of V2, though, loves to twist this to mean that all that the conciliar bishops push on the Faithful derives from the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. False.

So then, why not reference Vatican I instead? This would be more precise and appropriate, as what Lumen 25 restates in a pastoral context derives from a previous dogmatic context. Answer: they want Lefebvre to buy into the new direction of the modernist post-conciliar prelates as if that new direction had an infallible stamp on it.

"3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics."

This is simple. Translation: "we want you, Archbishop Lefebvre, to stand by and do nothing while us modernist, liberal prelates rape the Church. Try to understand what we're doing. Don't complain about it."

"4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."

Well, the rites are in fact still valid. And Christ is in fact made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Novus Ordo. It's true. But what do they really want Archbishop Lefebvre to believe? They want him to like the liturgy, and think it's all grand and good for the Faithful, and A-ok. But it's not. It's a deficient liturgy; only the blind or the innocent-uneducated cannot see this. But the malicious enemies within see it, and know what they have done and are still doing.

"5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law."

In other words, Archbishop Lefebvre, die on a Cross while the Church gets assaulted.

Maybe he should have, who knows.

But at least it should be clearer who the enemies of the Church are. If Ratzinger is a friend of the Church, he should have had no part in this, which is, without a doubt, manipulation. Draw your own conclusion.

Your interpretation of the meaning of points 1-5 in the article, as written in post #20, is subjective and personal. And almost totally erroneous.

Looked at from a particular pre-existing bias or dare I say it, paranoia, one could read into these points whatever one wishes.

For instance, you write on point #1 that "it absolutely requires assent" and that there is "absolutely" no problem with the statement as written. Good. I agree.

However, you then go on to say that of course, it's only there because they want to "abuse authority".

Do you not see how far down the road of personal judgement and subjectivism you've traveled? You claim to be able to read the hearts of the authors. Yes, the words they've written are correct but their reasons for writing them are not honorable.

Of course, it becomes obvious at this point that criticism of the Holy See is now not only restricted to so called "errors" of fact and doctrine which you claim they make but also to statements of indisputable fact. Yes the statement is correct but the motives for making it are all wrong. You've got them over a barrel, don't you? Whatever they say or do, you'll find fault with it somewhere or somehow.

And so it goes on through the other points.

The statements written above are terse, clear and unambiguous. Your interpretations are a stretch, by any reasonable standards. They betray an over-arching pride and a mind wracked by bitternes.