Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2023 11:46:37 GMT -5
Some Thoughts on the Resistance
Around 2012 or so, a growing rift began in the Society of St. Pius X. It's interesting that the rift was not strictly about doctrine, but was about how hardened a response to the Conciliar sect that the SSPX should be having. I find it interesting because both sides in the rift essentially want the same thing, but they each have different ways of achieving the goal.
What is the goal? The goal is to keep the SSPX pure from Conciliar contamination in doctrine and in the liturgy. The hardliners achieve this goal by keeping the SSPX separate from the Conciliar sect, and nominally name the antipope in the mass, maybe hang his picture in the chapel, but after that they have nothing to do with him or his sect. The soft liners are eager to negotiate with the man they believe is pope, and through negotiations are seeking to have an almost autonomous place within the Conciliar sect that is free from contamination in matters of doctrine and the liturgy.
Both sides admit that Catholics cannot just completely ignore the "pope." The hardliners demand the Pope accept the pre-Vatican II doctrine, and restore the mass as it existed in 1962, prior to any act of complete submission. The soft-liners do not demand that, and only demand that the SSPX may continue to believe the Faith as it existed prior to the Council and may continue to use the 1962 missal. The soft-liners would further demand some level of autonomy so they would not have to answer to local bishops and would be direct subject only to the “pope," to whom they would expect would just for the most part leave them alone, similar to an eastern rite.
Both sides appeal to the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre who said and did things that favor each view. The Archbishop did in fact negotiate with Rome to carve out a niche for the Society within what he considered the Church, and on the flip side, he distanced himself from the new sect and defied the antipope repeatedly, by operating seminaries, chapels, schools, ordaining priests, consecrating bishops, etc. The Archbishop publicly called the Conciliar church schismatic, and also publicly repudiated its doctrinal teachings and practices.
In and around the year 2012, the SSPX leadership under Bishop Fellay began negotiations with the Conciliar Roman authorities which would have facilitated the goal of the soft-liners, to carve out a safe home for the SSPX within the Conciliar sect in which the Catholic Faith could still be fully believed without compromise and in which the mass and all pre-Vatican II rites would be preserved.
It's clear that both sides in this controversy desire to keep the Faith, and in their minds at least, remain subject to the Pope, and by these two facts, remain in the Church. It's also clear to me that both sides are wrong, as they have built houses on a faulty foundation. It's not the duty of Catholics to understand and follow the teachings or spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, it's the duty of Catholics to follow as best as they can, in the absence of the lawful shepherds, to adhere to correct Catholic teaching and principles and put that into practical action.
Where will the resistance go now that they are separated from SSPX? Time will tell. Bishop Williamson, to his credit, repeatedly denies any authority and is clearly not seeking any authority over Catholics. He so strongly believes this that he absolutely did not want a governing structure to the resistance, essentially saying there will no SSPX part 2. Some of the resistance groups, however, have formed organized structures, as can be seen by Bp. Faure, Bp. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazel, among others. It remains to be seen what happens with these groups, if they behave like Catholics or become sectarian or new cults. So far, though, I have not heard anything bad about Bp. Faure’s group, but there is much controversy around Bp. Pfeiffer’s group, with very grave accusations against him and the group.
One last point to all of this, and it is an irony, is that the incorrect response to this crisis by the SSPX, whether hardliner or soft-liner, has insulated them from even worse errors, including heresy against the Faith. The SSPX, because they think they cannot privately determine that Francis and the others are not popes, have never ventured into thinking that would lead to the denial of the existence of the apostolic successors, that the Church can exist without them, meaning that the apostolic succession can be interrupted, that in order to be an apostolic successor, one become so without jurisdiction, that papal elections may take place without lawful electors, and other modern errors such as these against the Faith.
Around 2012 or so, a growing rift began in the Society of St. Pius X. It's interesting that the rift was not strictly about doctrine, but was about how hardened a response to the Conciliar sect that the SSPX should be having. I find it interesting because both sides in the rift essentially want the same thing, but they each have different ways of achieving the goal.
What is the goal? The goal is to keep the SSPX pure from Conciliar contamination in doctrine and in the liturgy. The hardliners achieve this goal by keeping the SSPX separate from the Conciliar sect, and nominally name the antipope in the mass, maybe hang his picture in the chapel, but after that they have nothing to do with him or his sect. The soft liners are eager to negotiate with the man they believe is pope, and through negotiations are seeking to have an almost autonomous place within the Conciliar sect that is free from contamination in matters of doctrine and the liturgy.
Both sides admit that Catholics cannot just completely ignore the "pope." The hardliners demand the Pope accept the pre-Vatican II doctrine, and restore the mass as it existed in 1962, prior to any act of complete submission. The soft-liners do not demand that, and only demand that the SSPX may continue to believe the Faith as it existed prior to the Council and may continue to use the 1962 missal. The soft-liners would further demand some level of autonomy so they would not have to answer to local bishops and would be direct subject only to the “pope," to whom they would expect would just for the most part leave them alone, similar to an eastern rite.
Both sides appeal to the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre who said and did things that favor each view. The Archbishop did in fact negotiate with Rome to carve out a niche for the Society within what he considered the Church, and on the flip side, he distanced himself from the new sect and defied the antipope repeatedly, by operating seminaries, chapels, schools, ordaining priests, consecrating bishops, etc. The Archbishop publicly called the Conciliar church schismatic, and also publicly repudiated its doctrinal teachings and practices.
In and around the year 2012, the SSPX leadership under Bishop Fellay began negotiations with the Conciliar Roman authorities which would have facilitated the goal of the soft-liners, to carve out a safe home for the SSPX within the Conciliar sect in which the Catholic Faith could still be fully believed without compromise and in which the mass and all pre-Vatican II rites would be preserved.
It's clear that both sides in this controversy desire to keep the Faith, and in their minds at least, remain subject to the Pope, and by these two facts, remain in the Church. It's also clear to me that both sides are wrong, as they have built houses on a faulty foundation. It's not the duty of Catholics to understand and follow the teachings or spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, it's the duty of Catholics to follow as best as they can, in the absence of the lawful shepherds, to adhere to correct Catholic teaching and principles and put that into practical action.
Where will the resistance go now that they are separated from SSPX? Time will tell. Bishop Williamson, to his credit, repeatedly denies any authority and is clearly not seeking any authority over Catholics. He so strongly believes this that he absolutely did not want a governing structure to the resistance, essentially saying there will no SSPX part 2. Some of the resistance groups, however, have formed organized structures, as can be seen by Bp. Faure, Bp. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazel, among others. It remains to be seen what happens with these groups, if they behave like Catholics or become sectarian or new cults. So far, though, I have not heard anything bad about Bp. Faure’s group, but there is much controversy around Bp. Pfeiffer’s group, with very grave accusations against him and the group.
One last point to all of this, and it is an irony, is that the incorrect response to this crisis by the SSPX, whether hardliner or soft-liner, has insulated them from even worse errors, including heresy against the Faith. The SSPX, because they think they cannot privately determine that Francis and the others are not popes, have never ventured into thinking that would lead to the denial of the existence of the apostolic successors, that the Church can exist without them, meaning that the apostolic succession can be interrupted, that in order to be an apostolic successor, one become so without jurisdiction, that papal elections may take place without lawful electors, and other modern errors such as these against the Faith.