This is ridiculous agitprop for Sedes and malcontents.
Sorry, but I have to pull the bull card here mr. Stevus, my friend. Suffice it to say, all here who are familiar with your posts, know you are to the SSPX, what NeoCaths are to the VII sect. The idea, and theory, that the Society can do no evil is just plain wrong. The fact that they do much good, possibly more than most other groups in this crisis (in the way of administering the sacraments, bringing many to tradition, etc.) is noted. But it is silly to think that an intelligent person as you would really believe that this is simply daft 'agitprop for Sedes and malcontents.'
Again, its this 'camp' mentality which does the most harm in Traddie land, IMHO. It seems, when someone disagrees with another, they throw themselves, and their opponents, into "camps". "You're over there, I'm over here, and since we're apart, we'll never be together
." And perhaps its quite natural for the Catholic to think that way; but I believe if he really thought about the disaster that's at hand, he would focus on what it is that makes us in the same camp.
ABL always talked with Rome and simply wished for Rome to allow the "experiment of Tradition" to exist in the Church unimpeded.
WRONG. Its true, and you are correct, to say that he may have taken that offer, to "simply
" allow Tradition to continue, at the time, considering his circumstances, but I would highly doubt that he would "simply
" stopped there. He wasn't stupid; he realized that, at that time, he had to crawl before he would walk; his group of seminarians and young priests at that time, were very fragile. At this point, they hardly need to take such 'simply' simple offers (toung twister :wink:). And also consider that the fruits of VII have shown themselves considerably since the mid-60's and 70's. And this not only in the Church, but the world she is to rule in (of course the Concilliar church wouldn't recognize this latter fact). If anything
, there should be much more leverage on the part of the SSPX to push for more!
+Lefebvre wasn't a defender of traditionalism because it was superficial to him, as it is to most in FSSP, ICK, and Indult, and as it is to many in the SSPX. He defended it at its core. If he seemed to be submissive to the idea that Tradition would be "simply allowed", it was due to the circumstances he was in, at that time. Times have changed brother.
Thats why Matt feared
, " that the Crisis would get worse before it gets better". Do you consider Matt a malcontent? Is it such a far fetched idea? I mean, if the whole of the church could be lead astray, as it has, why not the Society? Has it some divine protection or has it been revealed it would then be that much smaller of a target? Does the Society (and the SSPX-friendly) exclusively comprise the last of the Catholics on Earth? I answer strongly, while restraining a laugh: No way!
This is a far better situation for Tradition than under the wrath of Paul VI who dolled out censures and treated the Society with disdain. And even then ABL talked to Paul VI and only asked that he leave them alone.
Maybe it was better under Paul VI? I remember having a black friend who moved here from the South. And I remember asking him about racism and he said he thought it was easier in the south, because "at least you know who's racist."
If some would have their way, the Society would just go into open schism, refusing to accept communion with the man they recognize as the Roman Pontiff when they can do so with no doctrinal compromise.
They already refuse full communion with him. ..?
They may as well be Sedes if they do so, for that is the only way they could remain consistent. BW has been a crypto-Sede for years.
And? I see you fail to quote +Lefebvre here.
The Society was meant to be a "lifeboat" for Tradition, not a parallel Church who does their own thing in perpetuity.
Yes, and preserving that tradition is exactly what those here are concerned with. What would be the point of jumping off a "lifeboat" onto the sinking titanic?