Tradicat

+ JMJ The final section of the conference addresses another core 'resistance' tenet: Relations with Conciliar Rome: can a practical agreement be considered without a doctrinal agreement? In this section, the author pulls out all the stops and exposes further the differences between their thoughts at that of the SSPX.

+ JMJ The next accusation that the author levels against the SSPX is: Silence regarding the Roman scandals Again, in the midst of the discussions with Rome the Pope held Assisi III and Bishop Fellay authorized Fr. Regis de Cacqueray to publish an article concerning the scandal of the event ( courtesy of SSPX.org ). The real issue is not that the SSPX doesn't warn of the various issues and scandals. Just that they don't respond in the way that the 'author' would like.

+ JMJ The author of the conference makes the following claim: The distinction between "eternal Rome" and "the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies" - what was the basis of Archbishop Lefebvre's rules of engagement has been obliterated. In my opinion this is a core aspect of the 'resistance' belief system.  The problem is that the facts belie a different story than what the author claims changed in February 2013 with Fr. Gleize's article.

+ JMJ Introduction to the 'Private Conference' Interestingly at the end of the introduction are the following words: Firstly, let us say that this is not for us to judge people and to impute motives. Above all, what is needed is to try to analyze the situation objectively based on facts and official documents. Given my encounters with "resistors", I expect to find a vary narrow selection official documents used to support what they perceive as facts in order to judge people and impute motives.

+ JMJ Background I have in my possession a 'private conference not to be put on the internet' titled: How to see clearly through the current situation of Tradition?  According to their website, it was delivered by a Monk of Avrille November 15, 2014. My intention in reviewing this document is to determine if it is consistent with my earlier observations of the issues I noted in the 'resistance' (see links below). Specifically, that the 'resistance' believes that the 'conciliar Church' is a separate organization that is parallel to the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic Church.