Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on January 01, 2024, 12:42:31 PM
-
Ok, let's say the Archbishop was providentially prepared by God to de-facto lead the Traditional Movement for many years, start the SSPX, etc. This much is simply a matter of history. If you read his biography, it's clear he was arranged by God to help so many Catholics into lifeboats so they could survive (keep the Faith).
The Archbishop's crowning virtue (besides charity) was PRUDENCE. He went as far as he needed to in his resistance, but not a step farther. He did nothing without justification or a good reason.
But the Archbishop died in 1991. Would he have become Sedevacantist if he had lived to 2024? We honestly don't know.
But here's the point: I (and others) adhered to the SSPX because they were the most Catholic position, blessed by God, with good fruit, not going a step further than they had to, in their resistance/opposition to Modernism and the new man-made Conciliar Church. It was the safest place to park your Faith during the Crisis in the Church, and +ABL was clearly providential, so he was a good man to follow.
But today, aside from following the same line (today it would be the Resistance, as the neo-SSPX is closer to the FSSP now than to the classic SSPX position), what obviously providential figure is there to trust or follow?
No one. There is no sedevacantist individual OR group which screams "God is here", or "this is where you should leave (wherever you are right now) and get your butt over here, because HERE is the safest/best place to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church."
What Sedevacantist leader, what sedevacantist group's founding, reads like a Lives of the Saints founding of the Redemptorists, Benedictines, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc.? I'm not aware of any. CMRI was founded by Schuckardt, so that one's disqualified as a modern-day Saint story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt
Allow me to rephrase my point:
I
+Archbishop Lefebvre was a holy, saintly man. How God prepared him for his life's work reads like Lives of the Saints.
...and I would know what those sound like, because I've read probably 300 or more such books and biographies.
Let's put it this way: if +ABL's life and work makes you feel uncomfortable, or puts you on the defensive, then maybe JUST MAYBE you hitched your wagon to the wrong horse?
Again, for those who are unaware of crucial tidbits of +ABL's heroic Catholic career, you need to investigate it for the sake of truth. His holy family, his siblings, the number of vocations in the +Lefebvre household, the fact he was a prominent clergyman before Vatican II, the fact he headed up the International Group of Fathers, the ONLY resistance by the assembled bishops to full Modernism during Vatican II. And +ABL was personally trusted by the Pope with authority over French-speaking Africa. Last but not least, this extremely well-trusted Churchman was on the committee to draft the schemata that were SUPPOSED TO BE addressed at Vatican II -- the schemata that were thrown out at the outset of the Council.
And despite having a phone book full of Traditional "groups" in current year, that was not true in 1970. All you had were scattered resistant priests refusing to say the New Mass and saying the Tridentine Mass for scattered groups of Faithful here and there all over the world. But what about would-be seminarians? They can't just go off and start a chapel, and become a priest online. They came to +ABL and begged him to start a seminary. And he did.
In the end, +ABL's PRIESTLY SOCIETY was rubber-stamped by God according to anyone who has the Faith and eyes to see. He died on March 25th, which is literally the MOST PRIESTLY DAY in the whole 365-day calendar. Holy Thursday is a movable Feast. March 25th is when the Eternal High Priest became incarnate, bridging God and man, which is fundamentally Priest. He is Priest by his very being, having both Divine and human natures. I can't emphasize this enough. +ABL didn't start "another Trad group", let alone to compete with other Trad groups. He started a Priestly Society to form priests according to the pre-Vatican II ways. Offering the Tridentine Mass in various existing and to-be-created "Mass centers" came as a logical consequence of the former.
His many experiences as a missionary in Africa prepared him to defend the Tridentine Mass (having seen its power first-hand) and also the danger of priests being alone (as he witnessed in Africa, with priests joining whole villages in binge drinking). That is why he set up the system of "Priories" in the SSPX, where priests would always have a homebase with 3+ priests to recharge their spiritual batteries.
Once we have established that +ABL was an outstanding, peerless example of Divine Providence to see us through the greatest Crisis in Church history, we move on to my second point:
II
If I'm to leave +ABL's path and position on the Crisis, I expect to follow someone AS CLEARLY INDICATED by Providence as +ABL was, or MORE so. Not less than. In my opinion, all the "great sede priests" you listed pale in comparison to the stunning endorsement by Heaven that +ABL had.
Remember, it's not what a man DOES by his own will. That's not how it works. It's what HAPPENS, especially what happens that WASN'T the will of the saint in question. That's what you have to pay attention to.
-
By the way, when I call +ABL "providential" it's not because I'm biased. It's because I'm objective.
I mean that +ABL had a stellar career in the Catholic Church before the Crisis, he led the Resistance or conservative "international group of Fathers" during Vatican II, and so he was singularly equipped to convince Catholics and lead them into safe lifeboats in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II and the New Mass. He even received permission for his first Seminary, etc.
He didn't set out to "start a group", it just happened. People kept coming to him, seminarians came to him begging to be trained in the old way, etc. The whole thing just HAPPENED just like you read about in Lives of the Saints with any other religious congregation. That's what I mean by "providential". What happened with +ABL is what GOD wanted, not what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wanted.
If you don't know the history of +ABL, I actually feel sorry for you, and I pity your ignorance. I'm not saying that as a glib insult; I mean "I have feelings of sadness due to your lack of knowledge about +ABL." Maybe you should look into his history; he's an important figure in 20th Century Catholicism and the Traditional Movement, regardless of where you go to Mass.
-
Why does this post seem like a gigantic Ad Hominem.
-
Ok, let's say the Archbishop was providentially prepared by God to de-facto lead the Traditional Movement for many years, start the SSPX, etc. This much is simply a matter of history. If you read his biography, it's clear he was arranged by God to help so many Catholics into lifeboats so they could survive (keep the Faith).
The Archbishop's crowning virtue (besides charity) was PRUDENCE. He went as far as he needed to in his resistance, but not a step farther. He did nothing without justification or a good reason.
But the Archbishop died in 1991. Would he have become Sedevacantist if he had lived to 2024? We honestly don't know.
But here's the point: I (and others) adhered to the SSPX because they were the most Catholic position, blessed by God, with good fruit, not going a step further than they had to, in their resistance/opposition to Modernism and the new man-made Conciliar Church. It was the safest place to park your Faith during the Crisis in the Church, and +ABL was clearly providential, so he was a good man to follow.
But today, aside from following the same line (today it would be the Resistance, as the neo-SSPX is closer to the FSSP now than to the classic SSPX position), what obviously providential figure is there to trust or follow?
No one. There is no sedevacantist individual OR group which screams "God is here", or "this is where you should leave (wherever you are right now) and get your butt over here, because HERE is the safest/best place to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church."
What Sedevacantist leader, what sedevacantist group's founding, reads like a Lives of the Saints founding of the Redemptorists, Benedictines, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc.? I'm not aware of any. CMRI was founded by Schuckardt, so that one's disqualified as a modern-day Saint story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schuckardt
Though AFAIK he is not a sedevacantist, Bishop Williamson would seem to fill this role.
And then there's Viganò.
-
The reason there is a Resistance to the SSPX is because +Fellay and company clearly steered from the path. But that started in the very earliest of days with their clandestine meetings in GREC. And the sole reason Fr. Fellay became +Fellay was because his bishopric was purchased by a large donor. So, it's clear that +Lefebvre was human like any other. Yes, I think he was the key player in this mess but he also wavered especially regarding the error that has become +Fellay. That too is objective history.
Now waiting for all of the 'you hate +Lefebvre???!!!' threads...
-
Bp. Sandborn, Fr. Cekeda, Fr. Jenkins are the main ones that pop into my head as far as influencers go. The CMRI also has a lot of good resources as well. I learned quite a bit from those three. I'm not sure what the point of this post is.
-
Possibly +Vigano. God knows and time will tell.
-
More to the point as to why, in my opinion, +Lefebvre didn't go 'full sede' is because 90% of those following him would've disappeared into the weeds. People are still having trouble getting rid of an idiot usurper like Bergoglio with all the harm he's done - and that's a ton. If +Lefebvre had carried through with all the statements he made to that effect, in those early days, people simply wouldn't have been able to handle it and 'tradition' would be a mere fraction of what it is today.
-
But today, aside from following the same line (today it would be the Resistance, as the neo-SSPX is closer to the FSSP now than to the classic SSPX position), what obviously providential figure is there to trust or follow?
No one. There is no sedevacantist individual OR group which screams "God is here", or "this is where you should leave (wherever you are right now) and get your butt over here, because HERE is the safest/best place to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church."
Since we're talking about today, what R&R group screams "God is here"? I'm not sure what the point is here. You can say "the Resistance", but that's your opinion, and from the outside, given the antics of Pfeiffer-ville, a third-party observer might think otherwise ("See Fr. Pfeiffer. That Resistance is a mess.")
Perhaps the closest individual who MIGHT be in a position to become some kind of +Lefebvre-like leader would be a +Vigano.
But today we have the neo-SSPX slouching inexorably toward the Conciliar Church, and then we have myriad splinter groups ... BOTH among sedevacantists and R&R.
So I fail to see how this criticism is unique to sedevacantism.
Bottom line is that the only REAL source of unity for Catholics is the Papacy and the Pope, but given the vacuum of papal authority, this fragmentation is inevitable.
I recall that Bishop Williamson gave a talk after the Archbishop had died predicting the fragmentation and splitting precisely because he said that the Archbishop was a glue and without him the fragmentation was inevitable.
-
Bp. Sandborn, Fr. Cekeda, Fr. Jenkins are the main ones that pop into my head as far as influencers go. The CMRI also has a lot of good resources as well. I learned quite a bit from those three. I'm not sure what the point of this post is.
Yes, these are individuals. But Bishop Williamson's entire model for the Resistance is basically patterned around this notion, that there are individual priests and groups and pockets of faithful in a loose cooperation. There were many independent priests out there, but there was a vacuum to produce more Traditional priests, until Providence called upon Archbishop Lefebvre. If you recall, +Lefebvre did not proactively set out to create a Society, but was responding to requests from Conciliar-cancelled seminarians who sought him out.
-
Archbishop Thuc.
ARCHBISHOP THUC (ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com) (https://www.ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com/archbishop-thuc)
Unlike ABL, Archbishop Thuc had a papal mandate.
-
Perhaps the closest individual who MIGHT be in a position to become some kind of +Lefebvre-like leader would be a +Vigano.
I agree.
-
Archbishop Thuc.
ARCHBISHOP THUC (ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com) (https://www.ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com/archbishop-thuc)
Unlike ABL, Archbishop Thuc had a papal mandate.
That's interesting. Does that mandate allow for bishops at any time into the future?
-
Ok, let's say the Archbishop was providentially prepared by God to de-facto lead the Traditional Movement for many years, start the SSPX, etc. This much is simply a matter of history. If you read his biography, it's clear he was arranged by God to help so many Catholics into lifeboats so they could survive (keep the Faith).
The Archbishop's crowning virtue (besides charity) was PRUDENCE. He went as far as he needed to in his resistance, but not a step farther. He did nothing without justification or a good reason.
But the Archbishop died in 1991. Would he have become Sedevacantist if he had lived to 2024? We honestly don't know.
But here's the point: I (and others) adhered to the SSPX because they were the most Catholic position, blessed by God, with good fruit, not going a step further than they had to, in their resistance/opposition to Modernism and the new man-made Conciliar Church. It was the safest place to park your Faith during the Crisis in the Church, and +ABL was clearly providential, so he was a good man to follow.
But today, aside from following the same line (today it would be the Resistance, as the neo-SSPX is closer to the FSSP now than to the classic SSPX position), what obviously providential figure is there to trust or follow?
No one. There is no sedevacantist individual OR group which screams "God is here", or "this is where you should leave (wherever you are right now) and get your butt over here, because HERE is the safest/best place to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church."
What Sedevacantist leader, what sedevacantist group's founding, reads like a Lives of the Saints founding of the Redemptorists, Benedictines, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc.? I'm not aware of any. CMRI was founded by Schuckardt, so that one's disqualified as a modern-day Saint story.
Who cares. What have you went out into the desert to see?
-
You’re forgetting about two saintly monks living in poverty in a trailer park in Fillmore NY who have been “cancelled” by the rest of Traditional Catholicism by making sure nobody gets to hide their dirty laundry
(In case it’s not obvious, this is a joke)
-
Archbishop Thuc.
ARCHBISHOP THUC (ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com) (https://www.ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com/archbishop-thuc)
Unlike ABL, Archbishop Thuc had a papal mandate
Whenever someone mentions Archbishop Thuc someone else will jump in and say he was crazy. Was it dementia toward the end of his life or something else?
-
I will mention some others since Thuc has already been mentioned... (He wasn't perfect but I personally know a lady who was exiled from Vietnam during the conflicts over there and she vouches for the legitimacy of Archbishop Thuc.)
#1. Bishop Gerard des Lauriers
(Confessor of Pope Pius XII)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel-Louis_Gu%C3%A9rard_des_Lauriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel-Louis_Guérard_des_Lauriers)
#2. Father Joseph Collins
(I have yet to meet a traditional Catholic who knew him and didn't respect him.)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/198868056/joseph-francis-collins (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/198868056/joseph-francis-collins)
#3. Bishop McKenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McKenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McKenna)
#4 Bishop Carmona of Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mois%C3%A9s_Carmona (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisés_Carmona)
#5: Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_S%C3%A1enz_y_Arriaga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquín_Sáenz_y_Arriaga)
-
More to the point as to why, in my opinion, +Lefebvre didn't go 'full sede' is because 90% of those following him would've disappeared into the weeds. People are still having trouble getting rid of an idiot usurper like Bergoglio with all the harm he's done - and that's a ton. If +Lefebvre had carried through with all the statements he made to that effect, in those early days, people simply wouldn't have been able to handle it and 'tradition' would be a mere fraction of what it is today.
See, this is what I find remarkable to a certain extent have a hard time comprehending. Although I am using your post Miracle, it's only because the same ideas are so often repeated, especially lately.
It seems obvious that sedes never consider the other side of this issue. As I said earlier, back in his day, we all understood that it was with good reason that +ABL never said we MUST proclaim sede vacante.
But suppose he went 'full sede', he could not and would not have stopped there because the idea does not stop there.
With him proclaiming 'full sede' he would have misnamed this new de fide doctrine sedevacantism and insist that we must build our entire faith around it, being ever watchful not to impede in any way on this new doctrine. +ABL would have said we had to split up, divide out, and consecrate whoever wants to get consecrated as sede bishops, and insist that they get away from all other trad Catholics who will not accept that the pope is not the pope. And on and on.
Ever consider the above might be some of the reasons that he never went full sede? He knew all the implications, not just the minuscule few above because there's a whole lot more to sedeism than a chair, and he knew it.
-
More to the point as to why, in my opinion, +Lefebvre didn't go 'full sede' is because 90% of those following him would've disappeared into the weeds. People are still having trouble getting rid of an idiot usurper like Bergoglio with all the harm he's done - and that's a ton. If +Lefebvre had carried through with all the statements he made to that effect, in those early days, people simply wouldn't have been able to handle it and 'tradition' would be a mere fraction of what it is today.
There is some truth to this, in that Sedeism is (even today, with Francis' heresies all around) still hard to explain, precisely. The idea that a pope could be a heretic either before/during/after his election is just unique to Catholic history and unprecedented. It's hard to measure, it's hard to prove 100%, even if everyone knows "in their gut" that something is off.
The new mass or V2 being wrong is easier to swallow. We've had false/invalid councils before; we've had schismatic masses before in history. But a pope, who is part of an infiltration machine - this is unique. And even today, it's still hard to explain how/why God has allowed such.
I think +ABL "resisted" the idea (pun intended) of Sedeism because it was too complex of a principle to unravel. And he thought he could just simply remove the sspx from new-rome and try to survive until God ended the crisis. This method of dealing with the crisis was a good one -- until +Fellay took over, Mr Benedict Arnold, and sold out the sspx.
-
I'm nearly 40, and am a lifelong sede. In full transparency, I admit that it is a difficult position to live with, since it is a theological opinion that merely provides a diagnosis/prognosis without providing a possible duration or cure. Only Almighty God in his providence can fix this crisis and restore apostasized Rome. I say this as a preface to explain that Sede Vacantism as not a position that I accepted purely based on my upbringing, but one that I struggled with and embraced anyway. I spent several years of my adult life questioning whether I believed this through my own intellect, or because it was what my parents believed. Like most sedes, I have aunts/uncles/cousins that are good and faithful SSPXers. I read many articles from the Angelus, open-mindedly read many forum posts, and ultimately came to my present personal conclusions over time, study and prayer. And no, I do not condemn those who do not agree with me or adhere to some dogmatic form of sedeism.
Having said all of that, I have enormous respect for Archbishop Lefebvre, and faithful SSPX-aligned Catholics. At the end of the day, we're living through the great apostasy and all trying to do our best to remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and save our souls. I pray regularly for unity among the faithful remnant in the world that the devil seeks to divide and to devour.
As to who we sedes got, I would say that Bp Pivarunas is a tremendous leader in this crisis. Unlike others, who although had admirable qualities and writings, tended to take their theological opinions so seriously that they bind the consciences of the faithful to their positions, Bp Pivarunas has maintained a very neutral, but very Catholic stance over the years. Although he and his clergy hold that the see is vacant, and do not say mass "una cuм", he does not claim that those who do include Bergolio's (or any of the other usurpers) name in the canon invalidates the sacrament, or that you are forbidden to attend their mass. Although he fully understands how bad and dangerous Bugnini was, and likely doesn't like the 1955 holy week changes, he and the CMRI maintain them. Not because they think they are necessarily good, but because they recognize Pius XII as a valid pope. And as such, are bound to follow what he put into place or signed off on, until such time as we have another valid and Catholic Pope who would change that. I personally don't agree with the opinion of others, that we can pope-sift and do away with things based on our own theological opinions or preferences. I believe we are to preserve and maintain tradition, not to modify and rebrand it as we see fit.
Bp Pivarunas helped to take the CMRI from a group of sincere laity led astray by a charismatic cult leader, to a well organized, sincere, and scandal free group that has grown and flourished under his leadership. They now have over 100 mass centers, over a dozen schools, a major and minor seminary, etc. They have countless hours of outstanding content available on YouTube from their annual Fatima Conference. And most importantly to me, they have managed to stay out of much of the backbiting and controversies that have plagued many other traditional groups, while charitably keeping a position that does not condemn or mud sling. I find that very edifying.
Finally, I'll note that I find it an interesting coincidence that His Excellency Archbishop Levebvre passed away in 1991, the same year that Bishop Pivarunas was elevated to the episcopacy. Deo Gratias
-
As to who we sedes got, I would say that Bp Pivarunas is a tremendous leader in this crisis. Unlike others, who although had admirable qualities and writings, tended to take their theological opinions so seriously that they bind the consciences of the faithful to their positions, Bp Pivarunas has maintained a very neutral, but very Catholic stance over the years. Although he and his clergy hold that the see is vacant, and do not say mass "una cuм", he does not claim that those who do include Bergolio's (or any of the other usurpers) name in the canon invalidates the sacrament, or that you are forbidden to attend their mass. Although he fully understands how bad and dangerous Bugnini was, and likely doesn't like the 1955 holy week changes, he and the CMRI maintain them. Not because they think they are necessarily good, but because they recognize Pius XII as a valid pope. And as such, are bound to follow what he put into place or signed off on, until such time as we have another valid and Catholic Pope who would change that. I personally don't agree with the opinion of others, that we can pope-sift and do away with things based on our own theological opinions or preferences. I believe we are to preserve and maintain tradition, not to modify and rebrand it as we see fit.
Bp Pivarunas helped to take the CMRI from a group of sincere laity led astray by a charismatic cult leader, to a well organized, sincere, and scandal free group that has grown and flourished under his leadership. They now have over 100 mass centers, over a dozen schools, a major and minor seminary, etc. They have countless hours of outstanding content available on YouTube from their annual Fatima Conference. And most importantly to me, they have managed to stay out of much of the backbiting and controversies that have plagued many other traditional groups, while charitably keeping a position that does not condemn or mud sling. I find that very edifying.
Finally, I'll note that I find it an interesting coincidence that His Excellency Archbishop Levebvre passed away in 1991, the same year that Bishop Pivarunas was elevated to the episcopacy. Deo Gratias
Agree 100%.
I would have mentioned Bishop Pivarunas myself, but the OP already "disqualified" the CMRI group as an option simply because of its founder. I decided to focus on Archbishop Thuc given Bishop Pivarunas is of the Thuc-line. Bishop Pivarunas would make an excellent pope.
I had not realized that coincidental timing in your last sentence. That is interesting.
-
I'm nearly 40, and am a lifelong sede. In full transparency, I admit that it is a difficult position to live with, since it is a theological opinion that merely provides a diagnosis/prognosis without providing a possible duration or cure. Only Almighty God in his providence can fix this crisis and restore apostasized Rome. I say this as a preface to explain that Sede Vacantism as not a position that I accepted purely based on my upbringing, but one that I struggled with and embraced anyway. I spent several years of my adult life questioning whether I believed this through my own intellect, or because it was what my parents believed. Like most sedes, I have aunts/uncles/cousins that are good and faithful SSPXers. I read many articles from the Angelus, open-mindedly read many forum posts, and ultimately came to my present personal conclusions over time, study and prayer. And no, I do not condemn those who do not agree with me or adhere to some dogmatic form of sedeism.
Having said all of that, I have enormous respect for Archbishop Lefebvre, and faithful SSPX-aligned Catholics. At the end of the day, we're living through the great apostasy and all trying to do our best to remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and save our souls. I pray regularly for unity among the faithful remnant in the world that the devil seeks to divide and to devour.
As to who we sedes got, I would say that Bp Pivarunas is a tremendous leader in this crisis. Unlike others, who although had admirable qualities and writings, tended to take their theological opinions so seriously that they bind the consciences of the faithful to their positions, Bp Pivarunas has maintained a very neutral, but very Catholic stance over the years. Although he and his clergy hold that the see is vacant, and do not say mass "una cuм", he does not claim that those who do include Bergolio's (or any of the other usurpers) name in the canon invalidates the sacrament, or that you are forbidden to attend their mass. Although he fully understands how bad and dangerous Bugnini was, and likely doesn't like the 1955 holy week changes, he and the CMRI maintain them. Not because they think they are necessarily good, but because they recognize Pius XII as a valid pope. And as such, are bound to follow what he put into place or signed off on, until such time as we have another valid and Catholic Pope who would change that. I personally don't agree with the opinion of others, that we can pope-sift and do away with things based on our own theological opinions or preferences. I believe we are to preserve and maintain tradition, not to modify and rebrand it as we see fit.
Bp Pivarunas helped to take the CMRI from a group of sincere laity led astray by a charismatic cult leader, to a well organized, sincere, and scandal free group that has grown and flourished under his leadership. They now have over 100 mass centers, over a dozen schools, a major and minor seminary, etc. They have countless hours of outstanding content available on YouTube from their annual Fatima Conference. And most importantly to me, they have managed to stay out of much of the backbiting and controversies that have plagued many other traditional groups, while charitably keeping a position that does not condemn or mud sling. I find that very edifying.
Finally, I'll note that I find it an interesting coincidence that His Excellency Archbishop Levebvre passed away in 1991, the same year that Bishop Pivarunas was elevated to the episcopacy. Deo Gratias
Hear hear
-
The Archbishop's crowning virtue (besides charity) was PRUDENCE.
Indeed! He had infused prudence to a heroic degree.
-
Indeed! He had infused prudence to a heroic degree.
Well, that's a stretch, "infused" prudence? Apart from an infused gift at Confirmation, prudence is typically acquired and increased more actively by virtue of combining knowledge with wisdom and experience. Archbishop Lefebvre made some mistakes (particularly in judgment of character, e.g. +Fellay, Schmidberger, others ...)
-
Whenever someone mentions Archbishop Thuc someone else will jump in and say he was crazy. Was it dementia toward the end of his life or something else?
It's calumny.
Listen to this podcast:
The History of the CMRI: In Defense of Archbishop Thuc (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lPGeQ3_S8)
-
Well, that's a stretch, "infused" prudence?
Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., Theology of Christian Perfection (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6163) pp. 369-70:
Prudence is a special virtue, distinct from the others. Whether acquired or infused, it resides in the practical intellect, because it is concerned with particular concrete human actions. But infused and acquired prudence are distinguished by reason of their origin, by reason of their extension, and by reason of their formal motive. By reason of origin, acquired prudence is attained through the repetition of acts; infused prudence is given by God with sanctifying grace. By reason of extension or application, acquired prudence governs the natural order, while infused prudence governs the supernatural order. By reason of the formal motive, acquired prudence operates according to simple synderesis (the first law of natural morality: “Do good and avoid evil”) and the natural appetite for the moral good, while infused prudence operates under reason enlightened by faith and informed with charity.¹ Hence, whereas natural acquired prudence is concerned with the particular action in view of man’s natural happiness and perfection, infused prudence will operate in view of man’s supernatural goal of sanctity and salvation.
-
It's calumny.
THIS^^^. Nearly all those allegations were nothing more than the confabulations of Father-then-Bishop Clarence Kelly.
At best, Archbishop Thuc made some prudential errors. Even with the Palmar fiasco, the SSPX priest who took +Thuc there gave him the impression that +Lefebvre had sanctioned / endorsed the mission. And there's actually no evidence (other than the word of the alleged "consecrand" himsef) that +Thuc consecrated a couple of the really bad ones. There were quite a few con artists who came forth and alleged consecration by +Thuc whom +Thuc said he had never met or even heard about.
But Archbishop Thuc was undoubtedly in complete possession of his faculties up until the last contact that Traditional Catholics had with him, based on much credible eye-witness testimony.
-
Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., Theology of Christian Perfection (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6163) pp. 369-70:
I know what infused prudence is, and, as your link explains, it governs the supernatural order, and is therefore generally knowable only in the internal forum. Your assertion that he had much "infused" prudence is nonsensical ... not that he lacked it, but that you have no knowledge of his infused prudence or the degree to which he possessed it. You're conflating the acquired and the infused prudence.
-
you have no knowledge of his infused prudence or the degree to which he possessed it
"infused prudence will operate in view of man’s supernatural goal of sanctity and salvation."
His decisions had the salvation of souls in mind.
-
I realize I started this thread (2nd one) but I'm going to chime in with:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/
-
Why does this post seem like a gigantic Ad Hominem.
Why does this post seem so idiotic?
^^^
(THAT is an ad-hominem).
An "ad-hominem" is when you attack not the argument, or the substance thereof, but the man holding the position.
My original post was simply not an ad-hominem. So I can't help you with why it "seems" like one to you.
-
Allow me to rephrase my point:
I
+Archbishop Lefebvre was a holy, saintly man. How God prepared him for his life's work reads like Lives of the Saints.
...and I would know what those sound like, because I've read probably 300 or more such books and biographies.
Let's put it this way: if +ABL's life and work makes you feel uncomfortable, or puts you on the defensive, then maybe JUST MAYBE you hitched your wagon to the wrong horse?
Again, for those who are unaware of crucial tidbits of +ABL's heroic Catholic career, you need to investigate it for the sake of truth. His holy family, his siblings, the number of vocations in the +Lefebvre household, the fact he was a prominent clergyman before Vatican II, the fact he headed up the International Group of Fathers, the ONLY resistance by the assembled bishops to full Modernism during Vatican II. And +ABL was personally trusted by the Pope with authority over French-speaking Africa. Last but not least, this extremely well-trusted Churchman was on the committee to draft the schemata that were SUPPOSED TO BE addressed at Vatican II -- the schemata that were thrown out at the outset of the Council.
And despite having a phone book full of Traditional "groups" in current year, that was not true in 1970. All you had were scattered resistant priests refusing to say the New Mass and saying the Tridentine Mass for scattered groups of Faithful here and there all over the world. But what about would-be seminarians? They can't just go off and start a chapel, and become a priest online. They came to +ABL and begged him to start a seminary. And he did.
In the end, +ABL's PRIESTLY SOCIETY was rubber-stamped by God according to anyone who has the Faith and eyes to see. He died on March 25th, which is literally the MOST PRIESTLY DAY in the whole 365-day calendar. Holy Thursday is a movable Feast. March 25th is when the Eternal High Priest became incarnate, bridging God and man, which is fundamentally Priest. He is Priest by his very being, having both Divine and human natures. I can't emphasize this enough. +ABL didn't start "another Trad group", let alone to compete with other Trad groups. He started a Priestly Society to form priests according to the pre-Vatican II ways. Offering the Tridentine Mass in various existing and to-be-created "Mass centers" came as a logical consequence of the former.
His many experiences as a missionary in Africa prepared him to defend the Tridentine Mass (having seen its power first-hand) and also the danger of priests being alone (as he witnessed in Africa, with priests joining whole villages in binge drinking). That is why he set up the system of "Priories" in the SSPX, where priests would always have a homebase with 3+ priests to recharge their spiritual batteries.
Once we have established that +ABL was an outstanding, peerless example of Divine Providence to see us through the greatest Crisis in Church history, we move on to my second point:
II
If I'm to leave +ABL's path and position on the Crisis, I expect to follow someone AS CLEARLY INDICATED by Providence as +ABL was, or MORE so. Not less than. In my opinion, all the "great sede priests" you listed pale in comparison to the stunning endorsement by Heaven that +ABL had.
Remember, it's not what a man DOES by his own will. That's not how it works. It's what HAPPENS, especially what happens that WASN'T the will of the saint in question. That's what you have to pay attention to.
That is why, regardless of the number of Pope Francis' heresies, regardless of how destructive the Novus Ordo Mass is (and how that Mass, destructive to souls, was promulgated by the Conciliar Church and recent Popes), I will stay the course and continue to follow the path laid out by +ABL, because if God wanted me to change, He would send AT LEAST AS CLEAR a sign as He did when He sent us +ABL. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it. I'm staking my eternal salvation on it.
If I turn out (after God intervenes and ends the Crisis, in Eternity, etc.) to have been objectively wrong, A) I will have nothing to apologize for and B) I'm positive that God will understand. Because He gave SUCH CLEAR MARKERS that +ABL was the safest, most Catholic place to park one's soul during the Crisis, and that is what I did.
Again, I'll bet my eternal destiny on it. An eternity of unimaginable torture and pain vs. an eternity of indescribable bliss.
-
Allow me to rephrase my point:
I
+Archbishop Lefebvre was a holy, saintly man. How God prepared him for his life's work reads like Lives of the Saints.
...and I would know what those sound like, because I've read probably 300 or more such books and biographies.
Well, I invite you to read the Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc. It reads like St. Therese's "Story of a Soul". There are a lot of caricatures of Archbishop Thuc out there due largely to the work of Bishop Kelly and the SSPV, but the reality was quite different.
http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=2&ausgabe_id=180&artikel_id=1920
-
Well, I'm not going to condemn persons or things which I don't know or understand.
I am personally neutral on Abp. Thuc.
What did he do during his years in the Crisis to help souls? Besides consecrating "a bishop in every garage"? I believe there was a book by that title; I'm not making up that phrase.
All he did, that I know of, was consecrate a ton of bishops.
As for the oft-repeated canard that he went crazy, I'm prudently reserving judgment on that, but personally I lean more towards "he wasn't crazy".
Here's another thing though: it's difficult to judge individuals -- for good or for ill. All we CAN and SHOULD judge (cf. the advice of Our Lord) is the VISIBLE FRUITS in the exterior forum. The SSPX was blessed with abundant fruits the likes of which no other group could compare. Sure, there were many fine and holy priests and bishops who did fine things for their local groups of 50 or 75 Catholics. But let's keep it in perspective -- the SSPX did great good for the whole world, not just this or that small town. Ignatian retreats, Angelus Press, the formation of hundreds of new priests, support for Traditional religious orders, a half-dozen seminaries throughout the world, a network of hundreds of chapels, etc.
-
Again, for those who are unaware of crucial tidbits of +ABL's heroic Catholic career, you need to investigate it for the sake of truth. His holy family, his siblings, the number of vocations in the +Lefebvre household, the fact he was a prominent clergyman before Vatican II, the fact he headed up the International Group of Fathers, the ONLY resistance by the assembled bishops to full Modernism during Vatican II. And +ABL was personally trusted by the Pope with authority over French-speaking Africa. Last but not least, this extremely well-trusted Churchman was on the committee to draft the schemata that were SUPPOSED TO BE addressed at Vatican II -- the schemata that were thrown out at the outset of the Council.
Archbishop Thuc also came from a holy family, his brothers having been brutally murdered by the Communists (one was buried alive) after having left Holy Mass, and arguably were martyred. Archbishop Thuc himself then suffered a dry martyrdom. He couldn't return to Vietnam due to the Communist takeover, so he took up the humble work of an assistant priest at a small Italian parish and then small French parish. Not only was he not insulted by this, but he never uttered a single complaint about his deplorable treatment by the Montinian hierarchy. In fact, he speaks gratefully of the opportunity to received to "earn his keep" in a tiny, dirty little apartment (more like a room) that he was disgracefully committed to by the Novus Ordo hierarchy.
Archbishop Thuc was also a prominent clergyman before Vatican II. He held 3 Doctorates and started a seminary in Vietnam. +Lefebvre actually invited him to be the rector at Econe, due to his experience in starting/running seminaries, but he declined due to age and health reasons. Not only that, but Pius XI gave him a "mandate" mandatum to consecrate bishops without seeking approval from Rome due to Communism, a mandate that was never rescinded. So he too was "highly trusted" by Pius XI and Pius XII.
Archbishop Thuc was also part of the same "International Group of Fathers" that were "the ONLY resistance to the assembled bishops to full modernism".
So I submit that the same comments apply equally to Archbishop Thuc.
-
Archbishop Thuc was also part of the same "International Group of Fathers" that were "the ONLY resistance to the assembled bishops to full modernism".
So I submit that the same comments apply equally to Archbishop Thuc.
But +ABL led the group. Why?
Also, where is +Thuc's group?
-
Well, I'm not going to condemn persons or things which I don't know or understand.
I am personally neutral on Abp. Thuc.
What did he do during his years in the Crisis to help souls? Besides consecrating "a bishop in every garage"? I believe there was a book by that title; I'm not making up that phrase.
All he did, that I know of, was consecrate a ton of bishops.
As for the oft-repeated canard that he went crazy, I'm prudently reserving judgment on that, but personally I lean more towards "he wasn't crazy".
Here's another thing though: it's difficult to judge individuals -- for good or for ill. All we CAN and SHOULD judge (cf. the advice of Our Lord) is the VISIBLE FRUITS in the exterior forum. The SSPX was blessed with abundant fruits the likes of which no other group could compare. Sure, there were many fine and holy priests and bishops who did fine things for their local groups of 50 or 75 Catholics. But let's keep it in perspective -- the SSPX did great good for the whole world, not just this or that small town. Ignatian retreats, Angelus Press, the formation of hundreds of new priests, support for Traditional religious orders, a half-dozen seminaries throughout the world, a network of hundreds of chapels, etc.
Yes, because most people don't know the real story of the Archbishop, they operate on the caricature that was confabulated by Bishop Kelly and the SSPV. He was most certainly not crazy, though he made some mistakes, the worst having been the consecrations for the Palmar group. But even that he did on what he felt was the encouragement of +Lefebvre. It was a priest at Econe who initially requested that he come, after +Lefebvre referred his request to +Thuc, so the implication was that +Lefebvre asked +Thuc to go. +Lefebvre didn't go himself because he was busy with the ceremony but recommended that they approach +Thuc.
As for the "many" consecrations, outside of the 3 at Palmar, there's no evidence to back up many claims of consecration by +Thuc, and +Thuc denied them. We know of (and +Thuc confirmed) the consecrations of +Guerard des Lauriers, +Carmona, and +Zamora. Bishop de Castro Mayer actually referred The Nine to +des Lauriers, and those 3 men were highly qualified to be consecrated as bishops.
There's a myth / slander that +Thuc laid hands on anyone with a warm body, but that's completely false, partly due to +Kelly's campaign and partly because of various spurious claims of consecration by +Thuc from a number of scoundrels out there.
Really the worst mistakes +Thuc made were simply due to bad judgment, but then +Lefebvre consecrated +Fellay, promoted Schmidberger as Superior of SSPX, as well as several of the current leading quasi-Modernists in the upper ranks of SSPX. +Williamson made some poor decisions about whom to ordain as well ... Urrutigoity comes to mind (along with a number of others).
-
But +ABL led the group. Why?
Also, where is +Thuc's group?
OK, so? +Guerard des Laurier wrote the Ottaviani Intervention and at one point had to call out +Lefebvre publicly for continuing to offer the "interim" 1965 half-Novus Ordo liturgy. +Lefebvre didn't start the seminary on his own initiative, but due to seminarians that came to him, asking for him to start it.
So because +Lefebvre led the group that +Thuc was also a part of, that diminishes Archbishop Thuc?
This is bordering on silly. "My leader is better than your leader." Would you also attempt to diminish what Bishop de Castro Mayer did also? God asked different individuals to play different roles. There were also innumerable heroic independent priests out there. Were they also chopped liver?
SSPX vs. Resistance: "We're the true faithful heirs of Archbishop Lefebvre. No you're not, we are. No, we are."
This notion of having some individual "hero" to back up the claims of R&R vs. sedevacantism is nonsense. It was God who put everyone into the positions they ended up in. God inspired the initial seminarians to ask +Lefebvre to set up a seminary. +des Lauriers wrote the Ottaviani Intervention and influenced Lefebvre to completely jettison.
Bottom line is that Archbishop passed way over 30 years ago. What he left behind is starting to fail, with the neo-SSPX slouching inexorably toward Modernism. Bishop Williamson himself gave a talk about how the personality and gravitas of the Archbishop served as a glue to provide some semblance of unity, but that the only true unity can be around a pope, and it's why he did not set about to create a formal group called the Resistance.
-
Archbishop Thuc was also part of the same "International Group of Fathers"
Just curious, what is the source for this info.?
-
Well, I invite you to read the Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc. It reads like St. Therese's "Story of a Soul". There are a lot of caricatures of Archbishop Thuc out there due largely to the work of Bishop Kelly and the SSPV, but the reality was quite different.
http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=2&ausgabe_id=180&artikel_id=1920
Ladislaus, thank for this link to the Autobiography! And also all the other details you supply on Abp. Thuc.
-
This notion of having some individual "hero" to back up the claims of R&R vs. sedevacantism is nonsense. It was God who put everyone into the positions they ended up in.
Says you. I disagree.
Where are we to look for answers, where to go in the Crisis? Catholic doctrine? Ha! Doctrine only gets you so far: you need to be a Traditional Catholic. Now what? Which group?
In the greatest Crisis to ever hit the Catholic Church (bar none), you better believe God is not going to abandon those who are faithful to Him. He AT LEAST will give wisdom to "little ones", those humble of heart, those searching for the Truth, those docile to the inspirations of grace and detached from earthly things. Given the gravity and length of the Crisis, I would go a step further and say that God must have given a sign as to where it's safest/best to park one's soul during this Crisis. The fruits are there, the signs are there.
Nothing so definitive that it leaves everyone either "with us/God" or "reprobate" -- as I've said a million times, God hasn't stepped in and ended the Crisis, or given such a clear-cut endorsement of any single group that Catholics in all other groups are either mentally retarded or malicious. That day will come -- but it's not here yet.
Right now God is more subtle, he's leaving wisdom "for those with eyes to see and ears to hear". Those who have read lots of Lives of the Saints will recognize the same things in the life of +ABL, but it doesn't exclude good Catholics from adhering to some random independent priest ordained by +Thuc or one of his successors.
Just because God put up a neon sign "THIS IS A GREAT LIFEBOAT FOR THE CRISIS" doesn't mean that one couldn't save his life in many other smaller, slightly inferior lifeboats as well. See the difference?
-
Says you. I disagree.
Where are we to look for answers, where to go in the Crisis? Catholic doctrine? Ha! Doctrine only gets you so far: you need to be a Traditional Catholic. Now what? Which group?
Well, the biggest "group" out there is the SSPX, and the SSPX are in a state of decay. Bishop Williamson decided not to start a "group" for reasons that very much align to what I said. I was sitting there when he gave a talk right after the Archbishop died where he stated (foreshadowing the attitude he'd take with the Resistance) that the SSPX would either come apart altogether or falter since the "glue" of Archbishop Lefebvre's personality would no longer be there, a source of unity that he characterized as artificial (which it was for anyone who understands that the only real Catholic unity is in the Pope). In any case, he likened Traditional Catholics in general as little "pilot lights" that are out there waiting to reignite the Church and viewed it as more of a distributed action than a centralized one ... which, again, is what his mindset was with the Resistance. He could have easily started a "group", spun up a seminary, etc. ... and many have criticized him for not having done so, but I was not the least bit surprised after having listed to that talk he gave.
There's no single "hero" of Traditional Catholicism. We had many independent priests, we had Bishop Castro de Mayer, all doing God's will where he put them. As I mentioned, it wasn't some inspiration that caused Archbishop Lefebvre to proactively start a seminary, but he was responding to the seminarians that God sent in his direction.
-
From the Mailbag --
" +Guerard des Laurier wrote the Ottaviani Intervention"
Many sede's make statements that seem to give Guérard des Lauriers full credit for the Ottaviani Intervention.
If I decide to build my house, and I choose a design, hire various contractors to frame the walls, do the electricity, etc., who built the house? e.g. Is "Trump Tower" named for the contractor(s) who actually constructed the building? No, it is called Trump Tower, even if DT never pounded a nail. The so-called "Ottaviani Intervention" could almost be called "The Lefebvre Intervention", because it was +ABL who saw the need for it, organized it, led it, invited des Lauriers to participate in it, got it translated into other languages & worked to distribute it to other bishops, & sent it to the Cardinals like Ottaviani & Bacci for signature. Guérard des Lauriers was only one of the authors, a member of the committee. Would Guérard des Lauriers have done anything to try to prevent the Novus Ordo Missae (as +ABL did with the Ottaviani Intervention) if he had not been invited to participate by +ABL? Did +Thuc do anything to try to stop it? [Did Bp. de Castro Mayer? Perhaps he did, but I am not aware of it off the top of my head.]
I've seen Trads - (I even saw Sean Johnson do it once, which surprised me) - who speak as if +ABL didn't "do anything" until the seminarians came to him to help them become priests. How is fighting the Modernism & Liberalism throughout the Council, including helping to organize the Int'l Group of Fathers, fighting it within the Holy Ghost Fathers as best he could, fighting against the coming Novus Ordo Missae before it even came out by creating the Ottaviani Intervention, how is all that "doing nothing"?
"Archbishop Thuc was also part of the same 'International Group of Fathers'"
He was? I've never heard this before, nor seen him in the photo of the main members. Perhaps he was one of the other members not shown in the photo. Why was he not more famous as an anti-liberal at Vatican II? And anyway, where are all of +Thuc's writings, sermons, speeches that demonstrate him to be this great anti-liberal in the post-VII era? If he had written more, or had given great sermons that were transcribed, there would be no doubt. We would know whether he really was slightly liberal at VII & vacillated, or he was firmly, solidly anti-liberal the entire time. I believe one time on the forum, someone posted 1 docuмent - count them: ONE - not a very long one, and not very comprehensive, that was supposed to have been written by +Thuc, which sort of seemed to be a statement against the liberalism of VII & its aftermath. (In fairness, I've not read his autobiography.)
As for seminarians going to +ABL for formation, how did they know to go to him? It was because he had achieved a reputation as a great anti-liberal in the 1960s.
And none of this, of course, is to say the others are chopped liver. If indeed des Lauriers was the primary writer of the OI, if indeed +Thuc was part of the Cœtus Internationalis Patrum & helped fight (however quietly) the liberalism of VII, God bless them & all who fought. God bless them all for whatever good things they did do in the fight against the VII Revolution. But I agree with you, Matthew, that history has shown & will show that +ABL was the man chosen by God to do the most good in that era - the "hero" of that time in the Church.
-
So in my opinion +Thuc is a lesser hero.
But back to my question -- if we're looking for a sign from God where I should go to keep the Faith during this Crisis, where do I go if I'm convinced +Thuc is "providential enough" to follow? He is deceased after all. We're not talking mostly about history here, we're talking about practical application a.k.a. "WHERE SHOULD I GO TO MASS?"
Some random +Thuc-line priest or bishop isn't good enough to "count as +Thuc", unless they followed some organization, training regimen, blueprint, or leadership given to them by +Thuc. Merely getting Holy Orders from +Thuc doesn't give them a unified "brand" of some sort. When it comes to Independent priests, it's completely luck of the draw, pot luck, your mileage may vary.
+ABL designed the curriculum (including Ignatian Retreats) to form priests a certain way, using his providential and vast experience. He also wrote numerous sermons, books, etc. which were transcribed and distributed to his students. So much so, that even years later you could say that this organization he founded, these priests he formed, still had "his position", "his spirit" and there was solid continuity with +ABL himself.
The success and growth of the SSPX suggests, to me, that God wanted to ensure that there was AT LEAST ONE solid, highly visible, option for Catholics of good will to take refuge in during the time of unprecedented confusion. Yes, He allowed for others here or there, as "bonus options", "misc", or "icing on the cake" of Tradition -- but the one He took care to guide personally was +ABL and his SSPX.
No two +Thuc-line bishops or priests are the same. There is nothing in common among them, except where they got their Orders. +ABL had numerous writings, an organization, a whole philosophy and curriculum which formed a new generation of Traditional priests. +Thuc doesn't have that.
Even if you want to say +Thuc was as big of a saint or hero as +ABL, it still leaves us empty handed regarding how to ACT on that. We can't buy books or sermons by +Thuc, nor can we go to any network of chapels he set up. He only did the ordaining, period.
-
So in my opinion +Thuc is a lesser hero.
But back to my question -- if we're looking for a sign from God where I should go to keep the Faith during this Crisis, where do I go if I'm convinced +Thuc is "providential enough" to follow? He is deceased after all. We're not talking mostly about history here, we're talking about practical application a.k.a. "WHERE SHOULD I GO TO MASS?"
Some random +Thuc-line priest or bishop isn't good enough to "count as +Thuc", unless they followed some organization, training regimen, blueprint, or leadership given to them by +Thuc. Merely getting Holy Orders from +Thuc doesn't give them a unified "brand" of some sort. When it comes to Independent priests, it's completely luck of the draw, pot luck, your mileage may vary.
+ABL designed the curriculum (including Ignatian Retreats) to form priests a certain way, using his providential and vast experience. He also wrote numerous sermons, books, etc. which were transcribed and distributed to his students. So much so, that even years later you could say that this organization he founded, these priests he formed, still had "his position", "his spirit" and there was solid continuity with +ABL himself.
The success and growth of the SSPX suggests, to me, that God wanted to ensure that there was AT LEAST ONE solid, highly visible, option for Catholics of good will to take refuge in during the time of unprecedented confusion. Yes, He allowed for others here or there, as "bonus options", "misc", or "icing on the cake" of Tradition -- but the one He took care to guide personally was +ABL and his SSPX.
No two +Thuc-line bishops or priests are the same. There is nothing in common among them, except where they got their Orders. +ABL had numerous writings, an organization, a whole philosophy and curriculum which formed a new generation of Traditional priests. +Thuc doesn't have that.
Even if you want to say +Thuc was as big of a saint or hero as +ABL, it still leaves us empty handed regarding how to ACT on that. We can't buy books or sermons by +Thuc, nor can we go to any network of chapels he set up. He only did the ordaining, period.
You've been making a lot of sense lately.
-
So in my opinion +Thuc is a lesser hero.
But back to my question -- if we're looking for a sign from God where I should go to keep the Faith during this Crisis, where do I go if I'm convinced +Thuc is "providential enough" to follow? He is deceased after all. We're not talking mostly about history here, we're talking about practical application a.k.a. "WHERE SHOULD I GO TO MASS?"
Some random +Thuc-line priest or bishop isn't good enough to "count as +Thuc", unless they followed some organization, training regimen, blueprint, or leadership given to them by +Thuc. Merely getting Holy Orders from +Thuc doesn't give them a unified "brand" of some sort. When it comes to Independent priests, it's completely luck of the draw, pot luck, your mileage may vary.
+ABL designed the curriculum (including Ignatian Retreats) to form priests a certain way, using his providential and vast experience. He also wrote numerous sermons, books, etc. which were transcribed and distributed to his students. So much so, that even years later you could say that this organization he founded, these priests he formed, still had "his position", "his spirit" and there was solid continuity with +ABL himself.
The success and growth of the SSPX suggests, to me, that God wanted to ensure that there was AT LEAST ONE solid, highly visible, option for Catholics of good will to take refuge in during the time of unprecedented confusion. Yes, He allowed for others here or there, as "bonus options", "misc", or "icing on the cake" of Tradition -- but the one He took care to guide personally was +ABL and his SSPX.
No two +Thuc-line bishops or priests are the same. There is nothing in common among them, except where they got their Orders. +ABL had numerous writings, an organization, a whole philosophy and curriculum which formed a new generation of Traditional priests. +Thuc doesn't have that.
Even if you want to say +Thuc was as big of a saint or hero as +ABL, it still leaves us empty handed regarding how to ACT on that. We can't buy books or sermons by +Thuc, nor can we go to any network of chapels he set up. He only did the ordaining, period.
Matthew, each one of us goes to what God has made available to us. We have near me Father Leo Carley, in independent priest who's been as active as long as the SSPX have been around.
So, are you saying that people should go to the SSPX and not to the Resistance? Is the Resistance some "bonus option" also?
-
Nope, every time I say "SSPX" you now have to say "Resistance".
Just like in the 1000's you could say "Christian" but after the Protestant Revolt you had to say "Catholic" instead to get the same idea across.
Then at Vatican II you had to add "Traditional" to distinguish yourself from the worldly, ignorant, wishy washy, mostly protestant Novus Ordo Catholics.
SSPX used to mean "+ABL's position", but we all know they started changing externally, visibly in 2012. Some changes preceded that date.
So every time I say "SSPX is where it's at" I mean "SSPX up to a certain year, then the SSPX continuation which is the Resistance".
-
Some random +Thuc-line priest or bishop isn't good enough to "count as +Thuc", unless they followed some organization, training regimen, blueprint, or leadership
CMRI via Bishop Pivarunas.
Here are a couple of podcasts describing the beginnings and history of the CMRI (Catholic Family Podcast's Kevin Davis interviews Father Benedict Hughes).
They have cast off the Schuckhardt baggage (that is, if people would allow them to) and have shown dramatic increases in lay and religious numbers. Perhaps those who truly want to learn more about the CMRI will give them a listen:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CviNJBeD4&t=0s)(161) The History of the CMRI: Beginnings - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CviNJBeD4)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0_wAgdTWv8&t=0s)(161) The History of the CMRI: From Turbulence to Lasting Peace - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0_wAgdTWv8)
The History of the CMRI: In Defense of Archbishop Thuc (youtube.com)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lPGeQ3_S8)
-
And for the record, if archbishop Lefebvre was prudent in his ways, I agree. He had prudence, prudence of the flesh, not of the spirit. Because spiritual prudence doesn't contradict church dogma, nor divine and church law that teaches that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, that its also infallible and indefectible, and cannot possibly teach nor allow error, heresy or sin to be promulgated officially ...
See, +Lefebvre did not deny these things but repeatedly affirmed them. You don't seem to have been following on some of the other threads.
-
I think he did a overall good job considering the situation but made big mistakes with his statements on salvation outside the church by the church, and BoD.
-
I think he did a overall good job considering the situation but made big mistakes with his statements on salvation outside the church by the church, and BoD.
Agreed, but then so has pretty much every Trad cleric.