Skip to main content

The Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Reboot

Image
By
+
JMJ

I haven't written about the 'Resistance' for sometime as ... well frankly ... I'm 'retired' and sometimes you just need to have a face-to-face discussion in order to make any headway in evaluating the various positions that the 'Resistors' take.

But I have some time ... so ...



One item that is a fall back position for 'Resistors' is the statement that Archbishop Lefevbre said "No canonical regularization without a doctrinal agreement".

I challenge any 'Resistor' to provide a reference where the Archbishop said these exact words.

News flash - he didn't.

For those 'Resistors' who aren't mindlessly repeating something they heard elsewhere, this is usually taken as a reference to an interview given to Fideliter in 1988.
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.”Thus, the positions will be clear. (Fideliter interview Nov / Dec 1988)
Before we go through the quote, I think it is valid to recognize that the "no canonical ..." is actually a principle established by the 2000 or 2006 general chapter of the SSPX in their dealings with Rome.  It is also important to note that this interview appeared in the Nov / Dec 1988 issue of the Fideliter and that the whole context of the Archbishop's thoughts need to include the statements made by the Archbishop before and after this interview (for example see this article and these two interviews).

Now back to the principle and the actual words of Archbishop Lefebvre.


  1. We can factually establish that Archbishop Lefebvre did not make the statement the "Resistors" love so much.
  2. The Archbishop was speaking if he was alive and Rome called for a renewed 'dialogue', he was clear that he couldn't "speak much of the future".  The Archbishop went to his reward 25 years ago in 1991.
  3. We have the summary statement "If you do not accept the doctrine of your ... as long as you do not accept the correction of the Council ...".

Now this is interesting, as the SSPX discussions were all about expressing and discusssing the core issues with the Council.  The endpoint was that the Roman theologians accused the SSPX of being protestants and the SSPX rebuted that they were Modernists.

What 'Resistors' seem to miss is that if the SSPX were regularized while maintaining their position on the Council (read Four Points), this in itself is a doctrinal agreement that the Council can be corrected as Rome will have accepted that one can be Catholic and not accept the Second Vatican Council in the manner of the SSPX.

But, the likes of the Resistors have a fundamental assumption that the ONLY way for this crisis to be resolved is for the immediate abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae and condemnation of the Second Vatican Council.

That would be a first. It took almost 200 years for Arianism to be purged from the Church.

Seems to be a lack patience and perhaps even more a lack of gratitude.

Be careful, if you find yourself becoming bitter and self-righteous, you may be on the wrong path.  Can one really be called "Traditional Catholic" if they disregard Church Teaching???

The fall of Bishop Williamson et al is something to keep before our eyes in order to remain humble and grateful for the gifts that God has granted us with no merit of our own.

P^3


Further Reading
Tradicat: Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - part 1
Tradicat: Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - part 2
Tradicat: One and two years after the consecrations
Tradicat: A theologians questions
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ 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
30 comments
Read more

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

By
 + 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...
25 comments
Read more

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

By
 + 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...
9 comments
Read more

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

By
+ 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...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
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.
17 comments
Read more