Post by Pacelli on May 21, 2018 15:15:47 GMT -5
The following, “The Crux of the Matter,” Fr. Donald Sanborn, was published in The Roman Catholic, vol. VI, (January, 1984).
PDF linked HERE
(Comments: Fr. Sanborn was a a witness to the SSPX of the 1970’s and 80’s, so his testimony is invaluable to understanding the internal dynamics of the group. Essentially what we see from this tract is that the SSPX was essentially grounded in a cult of personality to Archbishop Lefebvre, as independent thinking in the crisis either to the left (finding a niche in the Conciliar sect), or to the right, (sedevacantism) at a minimum would put a seminarian or priest out if favor with the group, or would eventually lead one to leave by expulsion. )
Here are some excerpts taken from my notes, all emphasis mine:
PDF linked HERE
(Comments: Fr. Sanborn was a a witness to the SSPX of the 1970’s and 80’s, so his testimony is invaluable to understanding the internal dynamics of the group. Essentially what we see from this tract is that the SSPX was essentially grounded in a cult of personality to Archbishop Lefebvre, as independent thinking in the crisis either to the left (finding a niche in the Conciliar sect), or to the right, (sedevacantism) at a minimum would put a seminarian or priest out if favor with the group, or would eventually lead one to leave by expulsion. )
Here are some excerpts taken from my notes, all emphasis mine:
These questions were never really answered. Instead, the principle of adherence to tradition was constantly reiterated. An atmosphere of "playing by ear" quickly developed. Being at Ecône in those years was like being in a football game, in which you were certain that your team was going to win, but no one had told you yet what the game plans were. As long as we kept to tradition, everyone thought, nothing would go wrong.
If one answers the question in the affirmative, then logically traditionalists can only hope to be a pea in the modernist pod, a separate rite perhaps, recognizing the legitimacy of the entire post-Vatican II Church, at least in its officially approved disci- plines. Such an answer would make someone worry about what the modernist hierarchy thought of Ecône, and would always keep open the option of returning to them, if things became too hot in the traditional camp. After all, they would say, the Vatican II changes are Catholic. A negative answer, on the other hand, is a call to outrage, a call to arms, the arms of preaching, teaching, writing, the arms of traditional sacraments, traditional spirituali- ty, traditional philosophy and theology. It is a call to cleanse the Temple with a whip. (pg. 4)
If one answers the question in the affirmative, then logically traditionalists can only hope to be a pea in the modernist pod, a separate rite perhaps, recognizing the legitimacy of the entire post-Vatican II Church, at least in its officially approved disci- plines. Such an answer would make someone worry about what the modernist hierarchy thought of Ecône, and would always keep open the option of returning to them, if things became too hot in the traditional camp. After all, they would say, the Vatican II changes are Catholic. A negative answer, on the other hand, is a call to outrage, a call to arms, the arms of preaching, teaching, writing, the arms of traditional sacraments, traditional spirituali- ty, traditional philosophy and theology. It is a call to cleanse the Temple with a whip. (pg. 4)
And leave they did. Ecône and the Society as a whole has been plagued, from the beginning, with controversies, divisions, defections, purges, and expulsions. (pg. 5)
Let examples illustrate the point. Something which always made me uneasy at Ecône was a certain "picking and choosing" of reforms, which, in Archbishop Lefebvre's mind, were ac- ceptable and in accordance with tradition. The dialogue Mass, the Paul VI reforms in the traditional Mass, the use of the lec- terns instead of the altar for the Epistle and Gospel, the ob- servance of the Paul VI eucharistic fast, and the suppression of the traditional fasts of Lent and Ember Days are all examples of the picking and choosing. One got the impression of being somewhere in between the reforms and tradition, a third entity somewhere between new and old. The only apparent measuring stick was Archbishop Lefebvre's own judgement concerning the acceptability of the innovation. (p. 5)
Many in the Society argue that since we cannot follow our local hierarchy, modernists that they are, we must follow and obey someone, and that someone is Archbishop Lefebvre. They contend that he has a certain authority over traditional Catholics, since he is the one "chosen by God to be the Athanasius of our time." Accordingly, they assign to him an authority to rule traditional Catholics all over the world. This authority requires Catholics to trust him to make decisions through the crisis, and to select from the Vatican's reforms what is traditional and what is not. In other words, he is regarded by many to be the living tradition of the Catholic Church. (p. 6)
Secondly, to concede such a power to Archbishop Lefebvre, i.e. that of ruling the faithful all over the world, laity and clergy alike, is equivalent to making him the Pope. To do so would be schismatic. (p. 6)
Thirdly, although a certain unity would be achieved among the traditionalists by granting this authority to him, it would be a false unity, not of Catholic principle, but of a man, and would disappear as soon as the man disappears.
These incidents point out that the use of these rubrics has nothing to do with any pope; it depends on Archbishop Lefebvre's permission, and not that of a pope. But the Church says that an archbishop does not have such a power, and that's the crux of the matter. What may seem to some to be a tempest in a teapot over minor questions of liturgy is actually a very im- portant battle of principle: i.e., what is the determination of our guiding force in the crisis in the Church: the constant practice of the Church, or Archbishop Lefebvre, the man? (p. 10)