Author Topic: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.  (Read 3572 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1692
  • Reputation: +163/-296
  • Gender: Male
  • Mary Refuge of Holy Love, Teach Us Your Holy Love.
Many people think (1) SVISM and (2) R&RISM (coined by Fr. Cekada in a kind of derision against non sv trads; probably he and Bp. Sanborn mock it among themselves as RIDICULOUSNESS&RUBBISH or something; it's not what is handed down by Archbishop Lefebvre, as we see shortly) are the only two Traditionalist Positions possible, and sometimes, finding both deficient, leave Tradition, or even Catholicism, wrongly thinking there is no other option. I propose there always has been one, say, (3) RPWR.

"R&R" hardly describes all our rights and all our obligations as Traditional Catholics. Something much more in line with the thought of +ABL would be something like (1) Recognize (2) Pray (3) Work and lastly, (4) Restore.

There is a limited sense in which Recognize and Resist is True. But there is more to it than that. I daresay if we focused on 2 and 3 more, 4 will be done and done quickly by God's help faster than it is now being done.

Hence the acronym. Proof from Archbishop Lefebvre, someone asks? Easy: "We wish to remain attached [Hence, Pillar I: Recognize] to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter. 

And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith. [Hence, Pillar II: Pray]

Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives [Pillar III: Work]. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate Triumph." [Pillar IV: Restoration, which comes faster more we do 2 and 3]
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

Do all 4 pillars appear? Yes, certainly. Recognize the Pope; Pray for the Pope to have strength and light from the Holy Ghost in affirmations and defense of the Faith. Work tirelessly, by meeting Priests, Bishops or others as we can, to implore them to return to or restore Tradition in their parishes or dioceses. And then the 4th pillar is final restoration in Rome. +ABL always believed it was possible, and taught this approach will bear fruit, as it has. But R&R exaggerates somewhat, because many R&R's believe sedevacantism could be true. 

In order to be convinced 61 year SVISM is not even possibly true, we can review 3 basic and certain proofs. (1) An Ecumenical Council cannot fall into strict heresy. (2) Episcopate naming the Pope as Pope in the Mass is sufficient proof he is now truly Pope. (3) A 61 year vacancy in the Papacy is impossible, because only a Pope can fill diocesan vacancies, and all dioceses cannot become vacant; yet, they inevitably will, if there is no Pope for 60 years. These demonstrations have been used in SSPX Articles. The seeds say a Catholic Anti-Pope could conceivably be enabled to fill diocesan vacancies. Ok, but an Anti-Pope Heretic cannot, according to Cum Ex of the sedes itself. Thus, there are only 2 choices for seeds, (1) Either all dioceses are empty, which is heretical, or (2) the Popes of 60 years are True Popes, and only therefore have filled the diocesan offices.

You cannot have both, but only whichever one you choose. Sedes won't necessarily be convinced by this crystal clear demonstration and absolutely incontrovertible refutation of the heresy of indefinite SVISM. But R&R Catholics at least should think twice about holding to any form of R&R which secretly suspects that just maybe the sedes are right after all.
"Take my advice and every day in Mass ask God to make you a great Saint"-St. Leonard. Go for Holy Mass every day to receive the Holy Body and Precious Blood of God. Do never skip Holy Mass for even one single day, if you want to become a Saint, as the Saints tell us, we should all aspire to become.

Offline Mega-fin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Reputation: +249/-96
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is a great over simplification. It’s also not that we can take +ABL’s position from one quote as obviously his stance became stricter as the years went on and especially after 1988. He never ruled out SV absolutely m, he just didn’t see how it was possible. Big difference. 


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3345
    • Reputation: +1639/-2673
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I think I see what you're saying, Xavier Sem, but I'm not convinced that the situation is completely black-and-white.

    I think you are correct in that Cekada coined the descriptor of "R&R," and it is indeed a kind of derision, which is why I tend to not use it. The sedevacantists and sedewhatevers use it of course, since they go along with a lot of Cekada's views, and they do not support the Resistance.  

    I agree too that +ABL did hold out hope that Rome would one day right herself, but.... he was also realistic about the problem of Modernism. After all, he said that Modernism is like a disease, from which one doesn't easily recover (or words to that effect). How many Modernists have repented of their heresy? Very few, I think.

    I think that it's mainly the Crisis that's to blame for all of the division in Tradition. But also fallen human nature. We think we can understand all things, and therefore make firm pronouncements on the state of things, but really only God knows all things. And as to why He has allowed the terrible Crisis in the Church to take place, we cannot so much put our ultimate faith in men in order to understand the Crisis, but rather in God. As Bp. Williamson has said, it's not black-and-white. 

    "This forum is a space for discussion to defend the Catholic Faith following Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre. It is therefore not for rallying to the conciliar church nor for sedevacantism"
    - From the French Resistance forum (Francophone forum, in France)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The biggest problem with your idea, (not the only one though) is that many (most?) sedes cannot make it to the first "R", much less past it.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1743
    • Reputation: +686/-965
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • The biggest problem with your idea, (not the only one though) is that many (most?) sedes cannot make it to the first "R", much less past it.
    The problem with R&R is while they say they recognise Francis as Pope, they don't treat him like it. Calling the Masses he gives blasphemous, his canonisations false and/or invalid, and the man himself a heretic. On top of that, they even doubt his ordination! There is no point calling a man Pope if you're going to ignore all the implications of the position. If he is indeed Pope, then you'd be guilty of a slew of mortal sins of disobedience and possibly borderline heresy when it comes to call the NO(which +Lefebvre said one can attend, contrary to the modern R&R position) "unholy" or "blasphemous", as many on here do.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • The problem with R&R is while they say they recognise Francis as Pope, they don't treat him like it. Calling the Masses he gives blasphemous, his canonisations false and/or invalid, and the man himself a heretic. There is no point calling a man Pope if you're going to ignore all the implications of the position. If he is indeed Pope, then you'd be guilty of a slew of mortal sins of disobedience and possibly borderline heresy when it comes to call the NO(which +Lefebvre said one can attend, contrary to the modern R&R position) "unholy" or "blasphemous", as many on here do.
    R&R simply call him what he is. Nothing complicated there. Also, thank you forlorn from proving my point. :laugh1:
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1743
    • Reputation: +686/-965
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • R&R simply call him what he is. Nothing complicated there. Also, thank you forlorn from proving my point. :laugh1:

    Quote
    CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
    ...
    CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
    CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

    Condemned

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3560
    • Reputation: +4170/-322
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's always made me chuckle how "R&R" has been internalized by non-sede traditionalists.  It's a problem term not just because it doesn't actually describe what the SSPX, at its best, "is all about" but also because it's so vague that it applies to any position that obliquely criticizes something about Vatican II.  For instance, Taylor Marshall-- who is boilerplate FSSP in his approach to the crisis-- described Michael Matt as an emblem of R&R.  And that's just hilarious.  Someone like Matt and the Remnant crowd might indeed recognize, but they resist nothing.  If a given traditionalist position includes only behaving within the boundaries set by conciliar authorities, how on earth does that constitute resistance?  Maybe it constitutes some internal preference, perhaps even an internal principle, but if when push comes to shove they won't even set foot in an SSPX chapel, it's obvious nothing is being resisted. 
    .
    For the SSPX-types, the problem is with the other "R"(ecognize), quite obviously.  Recognize what?  That Bergoglio (or Ratzinger or whomever) are popes, or recognize that they promote heresy?  There's a chasm between recognizing in practice and recognizing in theory.  This has been said a million times by a million people, but if you don't use the same liturgy, sacraments, calendar, laws, teaching materials, etc. the pope has given you-- and in this case you positively reject them as far as you can-- you're really not recognizing anything.  Certainly not to the degree that "recognize" should be factored into a description of your position!
    .
    I do actually think that the OP is more or less accurate describing the initial impetus of the SSPX.  But I think we all do well to recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was constantly re-assessing the situation.  His only principle was Catholic Tradition, and over time the maintenance of Tradition was something that, in his opinion, called for different strategies.  By the end of his life I think it is fair to say he had very little hope that the problem would be solved by his efforts, so he doubled down with the 1988 consecrations.  This is not to say he was not committed to a restoration, only to say that time revealed to him that the conciliar authorities were not interested in it.  By the end of his life, he had little hope that any deal would be facilitative of a restoration.  What are the reasons to hope that 2019 is different?
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I think I see what you're saying, Xavier Sem, but I'm not convinced that the situation is completely black-and-white.

    I think you are correct in that Cekada coined the descriptor of "R&R," and it is indeed a kind of derision, which is why I tend to not use it. The sedevacantists and sedewhatevers use it of course, since they go along with a lot of Cekada's views, and they do not support the Resistance.  

    I agree too that +ABL did hold out hope that Rome would one day right herself, but.... he was also realistic about the problem of Modernism. After all, he said that Modernism is like a disease, from which one doesn't easily recover (or words to that effect). How many Modernists have repented of their heresy? Very few, I think.

    I think that it's mainly the Crisis that's to blame for all of the division in Tradition. But also fallen human nature. We think we can understand all things, and therefore make firm pronouncements on the state of things, but really only God knows all things. And as to why He has allowed the terrible Crisis in the Church to take place, we cannot so much put our ultimate faith in men in order to understand the Crisis, but rather in God. As Bp. Williamson has said, it's not black-and-white.
    Well said Meg.

    This Sunday's sermon (SSPX) was about the crisis, +ABL, the pope and hierarchy etc., it was actually surprisingly very good, but what I really liked about it, was that he explained that the people themselves are bear a big chunk of responsibility for this crisis, that all the blame is not on the pope and hierarchy. How true that is, yet how rare is that ever even given a thought by most people in regards to this crisis.

    Anyway, that is just another problem to add to the OP's idea.
     
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
    ...
    CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
    CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

    Condemned
    Are saying that you attend or support the NOM so as not to be anathematized?  
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #10 on: July 30, 2019, 10:10:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do actually think that the OP is more or less accurate describing the initial impetus of the SSPX.  But I think we all do well to recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was constantly re-assessing the situation.  His only principle was Catholic Tradition, and over time the maintenance of Tradition was something that, in his opinion, called for different strategies.  By the end of his life I think it is fair to say he had very little hope that the problem would be solved by his efforts, so he doubled down with the 1988 consecrations.  This is not to say he was not committed to a restoration, only to say that time revealed to him that the conciliar authorities were not interested in it.  By the end of his life, he had little hope that any deal would be facilitative of a restoration.  What are the reasons to hope that 2019 is different?
    The enemies in Rome have not given us any reasons to expect even a smidgen of restoration. All they keep doing is proving the opposite. The SSPX authorities are getting themselves sucked into the modernist machine of their own free will - the people who follow them into the machine will have done so also of their own free will, same as all the people who have or will  abandon the true faith for the new faith will have done so of their own free will.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3345
    • Reputation: +1639/-2673
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #11 on: July 30, 2019, 10:16:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well said Meg.

    This Sunday's sermon (SSPX) was about the crisis, +ABL, the pope and hierarchy etc., it was actually surprisingly very good, but what I really liked about it, was that he explained that the people themselves are bear a big chunk of responsibility for this crisis, that all the blame is not on the pope and hierarchy. How true that is, yet how rare is that ever even given a thought by most people in regards to this crisis.

    Anyway, that is just another problem to add to the OP's idea.
     

    Good to have your thoughts on the subject. I agree that the blame for the crisis may not be all on Pope and hierarchy. Could you say more about what the sermon entailed regarding this? It is indeed an interesting problem.
    "This forum is a space for discussion to defend the Catholic Faith following Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre. It is therefore not for rallying to the conciliar church nor for sedevacantism"
    - From the French Resistance forum (Francophone forum, in France)

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1743
    • Reputation: +686/-965
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #12 on: July 30, 2019, 10:25:08 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are saying that you attend or support the NOM so as not to be anathematized?  
    I agree with +Lefebvre's position that one may attend NOM without sin. My doubts regarding NOM come from my doubts about the Papacy of the man who promulgated it, but if I was to assume that Paul VI was the true Pope then I would never call the NOM blasphemous, unholy, impious etc. as many R&R types on here have, and is condemned by Trent. 

    At present I just try to ignore the Pope issue as much as possible. Conciliar authorities have declared that attending SSPX masses is not an act of schism and that it counts for one's Sunday obligation, and therefore even if I was completely wrong about V2 and the NO and the NOM turned out to be a perfectly valid and holy Mass, then I'd still be in the clear Mass-wise at least. Whereas if I attended the NO and it turned out the NO was invalid and/or promulgated by an anti-Pope, then I'd have gone my life without the Sacraments, and I'd be in a right mess.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #13 on: July 30, 2019, 11:08:10 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Good to have your thoughts on the subject. I agree that the blame for the crisis may not be all on Pope and hierarchy. Could you say more about what the sermon entailed regarding this? It is indeed an interesting problem.
    Although I liked Fr. Wathen's sermon better, he did pretty good in reference to Sunday's Gospel, "Beware of false prophets..." and spoke a bit more about: "Now this is the question; Who is guilty? Is it the false prophet or is it those who listen? That is the question."

    He went on about how the people accepted CITH (communion in the hand), eucharistic ministers, altar girls, gutted sanctuaries, and about 10 other NO atrocities - all of their own free will, but in part were swayed because they listened to the false prophets, that the people who went NO did not beware, while the people who remained true, did. 

    He quoted some Scripture from St. Paul that spoke plainly of how the "false prophets", the enemies, were in the Church then and so were to be expected within the hierarchy since, unfortunately I cannot remember which Scripture he quoted.

    He went on for a good 30 minutes or so I think, but it did not seem that long at all. Afterwards, I felt grateful beyond measure for stubborn parents who never listened, kept us from hearing and by example taught us to not listen. Just listening to false prophets affects everyone differently, but it affects everyone.

    I am in awe of converts who have no one but false prophets - yet they've converted anyway. I think they must receive a superabundant amount of extra special graces to convert in that situation, way, way over and above what those who were born trad receive.    
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10020
    • Reputation: +3918/-939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #14 on: July 30, 2019, 11:48:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with +Lefebvre's position that one may attend NOM without sin. My doubts regarding NOM come from my doubts about the Papacy of the man who promulgated it, but if I was to assume that Paul VI was the true Pope then I would never call the NOM blasphemous, unholy, impious etc. as many R&R types on here have, and is condemned by Trent.

    At present I just try to ignore the Pope issue as much as possible. Conciliar authorities have declared that attending SSPX masses is not an act of schism and that it counts for one's Sunday obligation, and therefore even if I was completely wrong about V2 and the NO and the NOM turned out to be a perfectly valid and holy Mass, then I'd still be in the clear Mass-wise at least. Whereas if I attended the NO and it turned out the NO was invalid and/or promulgated by an anti-Pope, then I'd have gone my life without the Sacraments, and I'd be in a right mess.
    The SSPX has always, with a few exceptions, held the position that one may attend the NOM if that's their only option. In light of all the bad that attending it has accomplished in such a short period of time, that position is altogether insane for them to even consider much less hold because by now, there should be no question that attending the evil thing, even passively, is a danger to one's soul and one must not put themself in that type of danger for any reason ever. Proof of this is all around us, literally.

    Back in the day, the position among most independent priests was this: Do not attend the NOM for any reason. God will not forsake you and will send you to a priest, or He will send a priest right to your front door so long as you remain faithful to Him. IOW, prove you are going to remain faithful and God will Provide. Going to the NOM for any reason demonstrates a decided lack of faith in God to provide the Mass for you, just as it is He who provides the same Mass for all those who have it. This remains true even today - or perhaps, especially today.

    This is not even an idea to most (not all) of the SSPX priests that I know, it is in fact, something entirely lost on the majority of them far as I know.

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16