Skip to main content

The Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Reboot 2

+
JMJ

Another proxy for the 'no canonical regularization ...' mantra is the following quote from the 1991 interview given by Archbishop Lefebvre.
However, one day they will be obliged to recognize that the Society represents a spiritual force and a strength of the Faith which is irreplaceable and which they will have, I hope, the joy and the satisfaction to make use of, but when they have come back to their Traditional Faith.
The underlined section is also a favorite proof text of the 'Resistors' and I suspect their fall-back position to my last post on this topic.



How to reconcile these two phrases uttered but a year apart?  Does one negate the other? That does not seem likely since the first half of this later quote basically repeats the first words given a year earlier. 
As for the second half, it clearly manifests a direction for the SSPX that leads back to Rome, when Rome will make use of the SSPX with both joy and satisfaction. Some would say that this indicates that the principle of 'no regularization without a doctrinal agreement' is embodied in these words and therefore fixed.  
This mindset leads leaves unanswered more questions:
  • How would a return to the Traditional Faith be manifested?  
  • Who needs to manifest it?  The entire Church or just the Pope who is the foundation of the Church?
  • Which is the higher level of authority? The Pope or Archbishop Lefebvre?  
  • Is it lawful to refuse a legitimate command of the Pope because of these words?  

The answer to my question is actually embedded within the words of Archbishop Lefebvre from both interviews.  
When a Pope realizes the vitality and value of Tradition as embodied in the SSPX, is willing to recognize as them as they are, to allow them to continue Tradition as they are doing, (words of Archbishop Lefebvre), then that Pope will have "come back to [his] Traditional Faith."

Even taking the quote out of context ( a favorite habit of the 'Resistors'): What signs would be required to conclude that 'they' have come back to their Traditional Faith?

I would stand by my thesis that "accept us as we are", would be a first step in demonstrating that change of heart.

P^3

Further Reading
Tradicat: Resistance mis-perception
Tradicat: Bishop Williamson denounces the resistance
Tradicat: Open letter to Canadian 'Resistors'
Tradicat: What is the 'Resistance' hiding? Part 1
Tradicat: What is the 'Resistance' hiding? Part 2
Tradicat: What is the 'Resistance' hiding? Part 3
Tradicat: What is the 'Resistance' hiding? Part 4
Tradicat: What is the 'Resistance' hiding? Part 5
Tradicat: One and two years after the consecrations

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.