Sorry, c est en angliche !
***************************

Regarding the documents of Vatican II controversy, here is what I learned from Fr. Scott Gardner, who did some investigation into this pertinent matter (he will hopefully someday publish his research as an article in The Angelus).

With every document published during the Second Vatican Council, there were three signatures:
- Presence during the presentation of the document
- Vote for the approval of the document
- Publishing (or promulgation by the pope) of the document

In the case of the documents, Dignitatis Humanae and Lumen Gentium, Archbishop Lefebvre signed only #1 and #3, but not #2 which would have given his consent, or approval to what these documents introduced (false ecumenism and collegiality).

In regards to #3, this signature simply attested to the fact that he witnessed the pope announcing the publication or promulgation of these documents (i.e., they have been published).

Nevertheless, the second signature of item 3 should not be construed as an approval of the errors that these documents contained for the following reasons:

the three signatures were made within minutes of the other. It is not plausible that the Archbishop would vote "no" for these documents and then a few minutes later, reverse his decision, the Archbishop made clear to Bishops Fellay and Tissier de Mallerias, as well as to Fr. Schmidberger what his signature for item 3 meant, and finally, during a private meeting with Pope Paul VI, the Archbishop was confronted by the pope regarding the very issue of not signing (or approving) these very two documents (which the liberals in Rome have always attempted to have the SSPX accept, as they are the keynote articles of the Conciliar Church). If indeed signature #3 had meant approval of these documents, then Pope Paul VI would have not reprimanded the Archbishop for his refusal!

Hence, even the Archbishop's liberal enemies did not attempt to construe signature #3 as an acceptance of these documents and their errors. It is only the neo-conservatives (via Fr. Brian Harrison) and the sedevacantists (who both parties believe in the same error, that is, the illegitimate overextension of papal infallibility, or, the pope cannot err) who have attempted to see the case otherwise for the following reasons:

- the neo-conservatives categorically refuse to blame Vatican II for the present crisis, but only its mis-application, hence Vatican II must be vindicated and defended at all costs, and the SSPX must be made to accept Vatican II, hence, the attempt to show that Archbishop Lefebvre initially accepted the keynote orientation of the Vatican II, but then changed his mind (they have attempted the same in regards to Padre Pio, either by omitting/neglecting his comments or by fabricating lies:
cf. http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/padre_pio.htm and
http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/padre_pio_and_archbishop.htm).

- the sedevacantists are rigorists and instead of making the proper distinctions (office vs. person, formal vs. material), they wish to make blanket charges of formal heresy, loss of office and vacantism. Along with many other problems, the sedes wish to demonstrate or prove the Archbishop's complicity with the Conciliar Church in order to justify their sedevacantist views (and the fact that most of them "left" the SSPX; in reality, they were actually expelled from the SSPX by the Archbishop) and to disuade traditional Catholics from being associated with the SSPX. In other words, the sedes attempt to paint the SSPX as if it is just another Fraternity of St. Peter.

Well, I hope that this helps and good luck with your "good fight" for the Catholic Faith. If you need any more assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Until next, take care and God bless.

In Christo et Maria,

Louis J. Tofari