#100: Contradiction (+Lefebvre Never Required the Conversion of Rome? - Part II):In the previous post, we provided several quotes to rebut the claim of Fr. Simoulin
et al. that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before considering a practical accord. Of course, we are speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre from the time he had determined to consecrate bishops in 1988, until his death in March - 1991.
But consider that Bishop Fellay had been maneuvering for precisely such an accord since at least 1997, with his sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC. It would be naive to believe in all those years of discussions with the GREC, meetings with Rome, and the eventual plan to "proceed by stages" toward a "reconciliation" following upon the 2000 SSPX pilgrimage to Rome that it never occurred to him (or any of his accordist associate and confreres) that eventually he was going to run into the stumbling block of Archbishop Lefebvre's well known position.
How to move beyond all those well known quotes, and the operative principle vis-a-vis relations with Rome which had governed those relations for 20 years?
The "solution" or blueprint was provided by the shadowy and subversive figure of Fr. Gregoire Celier, whom we discussed in post #69 of this thread, with regard to his 2007 book
Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, which the French District Superior (Fr. Regis de Cacqueray) heavily promoted throughout France.
In 2014, the US District excised an excerpt from Fr. Celier's book, and formed it into an article titled "
How to Interpret Archbishop Lefebvre."
http://sspx.org/en/how-interpret-archbishop-lefebvre The introduction to that article explains that Fr. Celier's thoughts have been adopted by Bishop Fellay, removing all speculation and doubt on that point:
"Fr. Celier, in this somewhat lengthy docuмent, lays out the principles and rules by which the archbishop made his decisions. It is not an attempt to play prophet; rather, if we more deeply understand this objective methodology, we can both better understand why the archbishop said specific things in certain situations
and why the same prudential methodology is followed still today by Bishop Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X."
What was this "methodology," which would help circuмvent Archbishop Lefebvre's prohibition on negotiating a practical accord with modernist Rome?
Fr. Celier
rightly explains one principle in understanding the thoughts of another is to determine whether they are systematic thinkers, or pragmatic thinkers:
"In the intellectual order, one can rather conveniently classify minds as being either “systematic” or “pragmatic” (without any pejorative sense in either case). “Systematic” minds are more often found among intellectuals, in whom thought predominates. They approach any situation in terms of the principles, the “system” with which they are imbued, and seek to bring the circuмstances of the situation into the unity of the system. Hence their thinking, their expression and their actions are very consistent (or try to be), but sometimes they lack flexibility in face of reality. Although “pragmatic” minds also live according to principles, they initially approach a situation by analyzing that situation, its concrete circuмstances and its implications. Upon that initial analysis they project the light of their principles so as to determine a course of action. Unlike the “systematic minds”, however, they are not especially concerned about checking whether what they are going to say or do at that moment is, formally and substantially, perfectly in harmony with what they have said or done previously, or with what they are going to say or do afterward. These “pragmatic minds”, therefore, are extremely flexible in adapting to reality, but they run the risk of appearing incoherent (at least) in the long term. Men of action, such as politicians, military men, and industrialists, are obviously first-degree “pragmatics”.
There is no problem with the principle as such, but it is in the
application of this principle that the "magic" happens:
By being correctly labeled a pragmatic thinker, and therefore subject to change and seeming incoherence as circuмstances dictate, the permanence and immutability of the 1988 and post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre vis-a-vis Rome suddenly becomes questionable again: After all, they say, "who can really say whether Archbishop Lefebvre would maintain his 1988-1991 position according to circuмstances in 2000, 2012, or 2019? After all, he was a pragmatic thinker!"
Consequently, the SSPX, in reliance upon the subversive scheming of Fr. Celier, treated the faithful to articles like Fr. Simoulin's "
We Cannot be 88ers," in which it is alleged that:
"Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"!
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rome-sspx-we-cannot-be-88ers.htmlTranslation: Archbishop Lefebvre's positions were good for his times, but nobody can say that he would hold the same position in today's circuмstances, because as Fr. Simoulin states in a completely solipsistic swoon:
"We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me;
but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
Even Bishop Fellay's conciliar allies like Bishop Athanasius Schneider took the cue, declaring that today Archbishop Lefebvre would certainly sign a deal:
"A personal prelature would be perfectly suited to the reality of the Society of St. Pius X and its mission. I am convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted gladly and gratefully this official ecclesial structure and the Church’s recognition of the apostolate they accomplish."
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-schneider-restoring-justice-sspxArchbishop Lefebvre was practical, you see, and today he would see how much better things are, and what a great deal he was getting!
But here is the truth of the matter:
-There is no doubt that Fr. Celier's principle of distinguishing between systematic and pragmatic thinkers is a legitimare hermeneutic;
-There is no doubt that, of the two types of thinkers, Archbishop Lefebvre was pragmatic;
-However, it is not the Resistance, but Menzingen, Fr. Celier, and the accordists of the SSPX who have failed to properly assess how, when, and why Archbishop Lefebvre's pragmatic propensity to react to changing circuмstances actually manifested itself, which was this:
Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with unconverted Rome for almost 15 years (i.e., from the time of the suppression of the SSPX until the time he decided to consecrate bishops), because as he stated, he waited until the last minute for Rome to show a little loyalty to Tradition. But once he became certain that Rome was not negotiating in good faith for the return of Tradition, and was just waiting for him (and Tradition) to die, THIS was the trigger and circuмstance which changed his thoughts and actions with regard to the impossibility of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, and having secured through these episcopal consecrations the principle of continuity and perpetuation of the Society, he would never again be in a position to need to negotiate. As he said, he was content to wait for Rome's return to the Church.Moreover, there were no substantial changes in Rome between 1998 - 1991 which would have altered his position, and, contrary to the solipsistic statement of Fr. Simoulin quoted above (as Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged, when he observed that Rome was still the same old modernist Rome, a year after Fr. Simoulin's crazy statement to the contrary), there have been none since:"
Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged. The words of Archbishop Lefebvre take on a prophetic tone. It has all come to pass, and it all continues for the greater misfortune of souls who no longer hear from their pastors the message of salvation."
https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2013-superior-generals-letter-80-1856It is absolutely clear and certain, therefore, that Archbishop Lefebvre would not entertain the possibility of an accord with modernist Rome in 1991, 2000, 2012, 2019, or 2219, howsoever the
disingenuous misapplication of Fr. Celier's legitimate principle may contrive to say otherwise.
Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45677 times)