Skip to main content

Reality Check for 'La Resistance' - The Real Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Updated March 28, 2015

Image
By
+
JMJ

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'

What was the line of Archbishop Lefebvre?

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 ...

P^3
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

By
 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

By
 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...
1 comment
Read more

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

By
 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The News is an Addiction ...

By
 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

By
 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...
Post a Comment
Read more