I admit that removing anonymous commenting represents a barrier to discussion.
But it does mean that serious comments will be (I hope) provided.
knish said: If it's unilateral, I couldn't see why anyone would oppose it. I know MANY here disagree, but I really don't get the argument. To be honest, I believe this is a schismatic attitude.
“The Society of Saint Pius X considers that the solution to the crisis cannot skimp on a rigorous clarification of the doctrinal questions in dispute, for it does not believe in the efficacy of medications that treat only the symptoms and not the cause” (pg. 140).
It is important to adhere to what the Church ACTUALLY teaches not what WE BELIEVE it teaches.
I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations. (Archbishop Lefebvre September 22, 1988)