Blind spot of the 'resistance'

+

JMJ

Fr. Pierre Roy has left the SSPX, breaking his engagement and Fr. Couture has written a letter considering the departure.

'Resistors' will respond exposing their blind spot.

The first aspect will be the understanding of the phrase 'conciliar Church' - for the truth of how the SSPX has understood the phrase click on this link.

The second will be proof-texts from Archbishop Lefebvre to 'prove' their point.

This a blind spot of the 'resistors' - the exclusion of context from their proof texts. Also known as confirmation bias.

For example, one of the favorite 'resistor' proof-texts is found in the 'One Year After the Consecrations' interview given by the Archbishop.  I have highlighted in Green the section that is quoted - as you will notice the entire context changes the implied meaning from a general rejection of any offer from Rome  to an example of the compromises of those who accepted the offer from Rome.

10: Benevolence towards Tradition?

Question: Now what should we think of the attitude of Rome as characterized by Cardinals Ratzinger and Mayer, who, up till now, are showing a certain tolerance towards Le Barroux, towards the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, towards the Fraternity of St. Peter. Do you think they are sincere? Is it a double game that they will keep up until they have exhausted all other means of rallying other traditionalist groups to Rome and then, once the game is over, those that have been reconciled with Rome will be asked to submit to the Council? Or, should we credit them with taking a turn for the better?

We know already that the submission to the council has been a consistent part of the mantra and something that the SSPX has continually stated as a no-go point.

Archbishop Lefebvre: There are plenty of signs showing us that what you are talking about is simply exceptional and temporary. They are not general rules, applying to all priests throughout the world. They are exceptional privileges being granted in precise cases. Thus, what is granted to the Abbey of Fontgombault or to the Sisters of Jouques, or to other monasteries - they do not say it - but it is according to the Indult. Now, the Indult is an exception. It can always be taken back. An indult confirms a general rule. The general rule in this case is the New Mass and the New Liturgy. Hence, it is an exception which is being made for these communities.

This is a key element up to Summorum Pontificum the Traditional Liturgy was allowed as an 'indult'.

We have an example in London where the Cardinal Archbishop has inaugurated three Masses around the Society's church in the capital of Great Britian in order to try to take away our people. "I am trying it for six months," he said. If our faithful begin to leave our center, he will keep up the experiment. If, on the contrary, the faithful stay with us, he will suppress it. If these Masses are then suppressed, the faithful who have regained a taste for the traditional liturgy will no doubt come over to us.

This has been a long time tactic of using the 'Indult' or 'Motu Proprio' masses as a foil for the SSPX.

It seems that Cardinal Lustiger in Paris is envisaging giving a church to the priests who left us, but he would require that New Masses also be celebrated at these churches. In our discussions in Rome with Cardinal Ratzinger, he told me when we were moving towards an agreement, that if authorization was given to use the old liturgy at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris, there would also have to be New Masses. [Tradicat: This is one of the compromises that was requested after the signing of the Protocol] That was perfectly clear and it clearly shows their state of mind. For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.

So with the full context we find that the 'maneuver' is to provide an exception along with compromises.  As is clear, if a compromise is required, the SSPX will not agree.  If a compromise is not required and Rome truly will 'accept us as we are' - then life will be interesting! (
Full interview can be found here. )

P^3