+
JMJ
Fr. Greiger's latest anti-traditionalist posting has some interesting points that give more insight to his motivations.
Crypto-Lefebvrism is theoretical and practical agreement with the anticonciliar ideas of the SSPX, involving whatever dissimulation is necessary to continue to operate within full communion. Bishop Fellay has made reference to bishops who act in this fashion, who are in agreement with the SSPX, but more or less camouflage their intentions in order not to be removed from influence (1:14:00-1:16:30).
So taking Fr. Greiger's definition, I would assume he would include the FSSP, ICK, IBP, and Bishop Schneider as crypto-lefebvrists.
An example of this is the attempt to justify the Society’s behavior and the theories of its sympathizers, like Roberto de Mattei, on the false basis that Pope Benedict was the one that encouraged the questioning of the “hermeneutic of continuity” The falsity of this is shown clearly, both from my arguments here, as well as my documentation of the dialogue between the Society and Rome.I sometimes wonder why Fr. Greiger wants to shutdown any debate about the 'crypto-lefebvrist' point of view on the Council. What does he fear?
Another instance is the “95% argument,” namely, that the SSPX agrees with 95% of what Vatican II teaches and therefore could never be construed logically to be fundamentally opposed to the Council. This is simply sophistry contrived to produce sympathy toward the Society. It is abundantly clear that the SSPX believes Vatican II is a poisoned apple. It does not matter what percentage of the Council the Society accepts. Anyone, who has read the sources I have pointed to knows that the SSPX believes the Council and the Mass it produced to be a Modernist, Freemasonic and Jewish betrayal of tradition.Well, as noted by the Bishop Fellay, they are not fundamentally against the Council (link mp3), so Fr. Greiger's opinion on this matter is obviously skewed.
I imagine that readers will notice that I do nothing here to substantively defend Vatican II against the traditionalist arguments. My purpose is different. Here I just want to hold their feet to the fire and get them to commit themselves to their position like the counterrevolutionaries they are.It would be nice to see what arguments he would use to defend the Council and against whom. The four points of the SSPX are public knowledge. I wonder what Fr. Greiger is afraid of.
I understand the reasons for not doing so, especially among priests and bishops, whose positions would be at risk within the postconciliar Church if they came clean. For this reason, Internet anonymity and pseudonymity are very effective tools of the counterrevolution. But it is bad business all the same, and someone has to point it out.I wonder if Fr. Greiger realizes that by casting the 'crypto-lefebvrists' as counterrevolutionaries, he has cast himself in the role of revolutionary. If he does so on purpose, then he proves their point.
And I have just the motive to do it, since the crypto-Lefebvrists have chosen to make the religious Institute to which I have been committed for more than twenty-five years the battlefield of their little war on the Council. That is one of the reasons why the Holy See has intervened within the FI in the manner as it has, and all the complaining just makes the problem even more evident. The more people who clearly have agendas claim that “crypto-Lefebvrists are just ghosts, the more it is clear they have something to hide.Here Father has lifted the veil just slightly. There is more to his motivations than the 'truth', there is something personal. The 'I have been committed for more than twenty-five years' supports this conclusion. I had suspected as much due to the manner in which he approaches his arguments.
As noted earlier, the ability of an order to make such a change was granted in SP. The 'revolutionaries' simply didn't want to obey a legitimate command.
The other key concerns his personal understanding and assumptions of the Second Vatican Council and the reform(s) that issued from them. This key is lacking, but could be provided if we knew the answer to one question:
What mental models would Fr. Greiger have to change if the SSPX is right about the 'four points'.
I'm afraid that the answer will be long in coming as even considering such a possibility would cause him anguish if his assumptions about the Council are strongly held.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment