Reality Check for 'La Resistance' - The Real Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Updated July 1, 2015
In light of Bishop Williamson's recent EC415 and this statement:
And if these officials are so corrupt in the Faith that contact with them positively endangers that faith of Catholics which is the very basis of Catholics’ spiritual life, then Catholics must positively avoid such officials. . Tradicat Evaluation of EC415
I thought it would be good to compare his approach to that of Archbishop Lefebvre - reblogged below.
Here is why I have always thought that I had to go to Rome, that I had to write, that I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them. (Archbishop Lefebvre - Long Island Conference 1983)
Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are. We wish to continue Tradition as we are doing.
It was over. That was when I took the decision to give the press conference on the 15th of June because I did not wish to act in secret. There can be no durable Tradition without a traditional bishop. ...(Archbishop Lefebvre - One Year After the Consecrations 1989)
As always, I think that actions are more convincing than words. There are some who say to me, you could easily write a grand letter to the pope. But, for twenty years now, we have been writing letters which get nowhere. Once again, actions speak louder than words. When we open a seminary or when we create priories, or when we open schools, when the sisters swarm and the convents multiply, that is the only way of forcing Rome to negotiate. It's not a question of my being there, it's a question of the works we do. At Rome, they're well aware that what we're doing is not nothing. The bishops get a little annoyed when we implant ourselves here and there, and so they complain to Rome and Rome knows what's going on. So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome (Tnote: In 2000 it was Rome that approached the SSPX - as predicted by Archbishop Lefebvre). I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize the fact.(Archbishop Lefebvre - One Year After the Consecrations 1989)
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" (Note: This is the basic structure proposed to the SSPX in 2012 with some adjustments) But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! (Note: The Archbishop does not out-of-hand reject the possibility as do the 'resistance') But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. (Archbishop Lefebvre - Two Years After the Consecrations 1990)
I would suggest that being recognized 'as we are' would be accomplished if the Pope regularized the SSPX according to the 'six conditions'.
The opinion of the 'resistance' is definitely going against the second quote - have nothing to do with Rome.
So who really is following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre? It was always Rome that would not accept him and his little SSPX. It was the other Bishops who maneuvered the Pope into the sanctions against him.
It was not the other way around. Archbihop Lefebvre followed another Catholic principle: Assuming the good will of the other.
Quite the contrast with those who scream from the housetops that they alone are following the 'line of Archbishop Lefebvre'.
Funny that ...
Update: I decided to include more text from the 1 and 2 year after the consecration interviews. Here we have the 'recognized as we are' which was quoted by Bishop Fellay and oddly enough criticized by the 'resistance' (Odd that the resistance criticized Bishop Fellay for these words). The second aspect is the 'I did not wish to act in secret' - which shows a marked difference between Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Williamson et al had intended to keep the consecration of Fr. Faure a secret. So ... who is really following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre? Not the 'resistance'