+
JMJ
An unknown anonymous poster posted the following:
I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations. (Archbishop Lefebvre September 22, 1988)
This is interesting because ... it is before other statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre that indicate otherwise.
Lord save us from the confirmation bias of the 'resistors'.
P^3
PS. Would be nice if there was a reference from where this came from ...
Google it . You will find it was said by Archbsp. Lefebvre during a retreat he gave in Sept 1988.
ReplyDeleteI did and all I found was the 'resistance' quotes without context.
DeleteFideliter Nov Dec 1988
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Lefebvre: We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
Interesting - I have a link on one of my timelines ... this bit "As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” is interesting as a correction starts with not requiring acceptance of the council.
DeleteAnyway, the context of this quotation needs to be restored - for example the 1989 and 1990 interviews are a good spot. Also the other aspects of what happened right before the consecrations would be useful.
Without the context one could mistakenly believe that the SSPX must throw away the Catholic principle of obedience in order to remain true to Archibishop Lefebvre.
Fortunately, that is not the case.
P^3