I'm sure we all have beams to remove from our eyes.

In your response to another poster you said: "It was kept quiet because the Vatican wanted it so". Anyone who engaged his brain could see that. Now you say you 'don't know' if they wanted it kept quiet. By the way - didn't you mean 'the Holy See'?

You also stated: "SSPX has not chosen to publicise it doubtless because of big mouth know-nothings like you two who are more interested in creating trouble than in the finding truth or seeking the good of the Church". The word 'doubtless' is somewhat at variance with your later statement that you 'don't know' whether the SSPX wants the matter kept quiet.

I actually agree with you that it is better that this de facto regularisation is out in the open. But surely your statement that other novus ordo bishops should 'take leaf out of his (Francis') book' and not be illiberal and intolerant towards the SSPX implies strongly that 'regularisation' is beneficial? Why would you want something to happen more widely if it were not beneficial?

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre never definitively embraced the sedevacantist position and sometimes criticised it. On the other hand he also privately and publicly discussed the possibility of a false pope in relation to Paul VI and JPII:

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

He also spoke strongly against the conciliar entity in the time of JPII:

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

Naturally the 'counterfeit church' and the Catholic Church are not the same. But how can one man be leader of both? Too many 'traditionalists' abandon Catholic teaching on the Papacy in their desperation to have a 'pope'.

Dear Mr Bogle.

If neither the Vatican nor the SSPX wishes this information to be in the public domain, why do you believe that it should be?

More importantly, why do you think it is beneficial to be regularised by what Archbishop Lefebvre called 'the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies'. He refused to follow this 'neo-modernist' Rome in 1974 and, later, strongly condemned JPII. We can only imagine what he would say about Francis!

Following the Consecrations of 1988, SSPX District Superiors declared that they wished to share the excommunication said to have been incurred by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and the four consecrated bishops:

"To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism."

Is the novus ordo organisation led by Francis no longer a 'counterfeit church'?