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

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

+ JMJ Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog