Loosely translated from https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2019/04/carta-de-lector.htmlBeyond the naïve commentary of another reader
Hopefully their situation will be regularized to have the SSPX run by Catholic parishes everywhere.
to envision a prelature for the SSPX "without concessions in matters of doctrine" is credible. But not because the destroyer Francis is going to do it because "he likes the Fraternity", or has sympathy for Bishop Fellay, or has "read twice the biography of Bishop Lefebvre". That's absurd. There is no one who hates everything that is traditionally Catholic like Bergoglio. Do not we check it every day? Do not you just give an interview in Spain where it is placed well to the left? I think, yes, that we are before the solve et coagula of the conciliar ones. Solve ad intra and coagulate ad extra . The Church of the NOM requires "unity in diversity" or, to put it in Argentina in Peronist terms, "that everyone has their feet in the same plate". Peron had problems with the Marxist Peronist left only when they began to question or overshadow their own authority, not ideological issues. Bergoglio is another Perón (we will see to what extent in a forthcoming book by Antonio Caponnetto, who has devoted himself to studying the matter exhaustively). Francisco makes ecuмenism, and just as he made an agreement with communist China, he can do it with the SSPX, without any doctrinal change. We see that after the agreement, the Chinese continue their usual policy as usual, without interfering in Francisco's plans. The important thing is to participate in the same dialectic of action . This is the important issue. The Fraternity will not give up criticizing Vatican II (at least at the beginning), but will never get involved with Francisco himself, as we are seeing now . The boss is untouchable . It is as if they gave him a great and beautiful "book of complaints", inevitable in all business or company, but that then remains neatly kept, without disturbing anyone. Until little by little the criticism or lament is loosening, transforming the FSSPX into a new and completely irrelevant FSSP. They, the Romans, know it very well.
I think that all this is explained by the communist dialectic , applied with great astuteness . For me the key has been the acceptance of the dialectic in the coexistence of the two rites, the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass (today April 3 is the 50th anniversary of the "bastard rite", I do not see that on the date the SSPX has no article deploring it in its numerous media), imposed by Rome. The possibility of agreeing with who accepts the Novus Ordo - this has already been explicitly accepted by the FSSPX, as long as they allow it to remain "as it is" - has put it in that dialectic created by the modernists themselves. They have deviated from the real opposition that is: Catholic Church vs. conciliar church, or catholic religion against modernist religion, which are irreconcilable, as Bishop Lefebvre said and among which there can be no possible agreement, as there can not be between communism and anti-communism. The tactic used at this time with the FSSPX is to tell you that it is necessary to provide them with the means to help the faithful, and for that the FSSPX is provided with the necessary facilities for their apostolate, and that this is what must be addressed now. , and not doctrinal questions that can wait until tomorrow. Moreover, the current dialectic could be said to be between those who want an agreement or recognition for the SSPX, and those who oppose it. Francisco is with the FSSPX in the first camp. That's why they can and should work together. The enemies of the FSSPX have become, then, the "anti-bankists", whether Card. Müller or the "Resistance".
Let's see what Father Meinvielle, an expert in the field, says when he talks about the dialectic of action , in his book "Communism in the anti-Christian revolution":
"There are always possibilities of internal contradictions, really pre-existing or artificially provoked, which in one case or another will be considerably amplified and exacerbated by agitation and propaganda: between exploiters and exploited, bourgeois and proletarians, imperialists and anti-imperialists, black and white, lay and free, reactionary and revolutionary.
That these contradictions are real or fictitious, does not interest communism. Nor is he interested in making them disappear. On the contrary, communism wants to drag us into the practice of dialectics, wants to get us into its mechanism, so that, consciously or not, we practice it. The concrete reality of this practice of dialectics consists in exploiting the existence of two political fields in relation to each contradiction, or in creating them, if one of the fields does not exist, being baptized as "field of the working class", which must fight against the other field until its total elimination.
The line of limitation between the fields can be more or less arbitrary; it is enough that the communist party is in a position to impose on the consciences, by the volume of their influence and publicity, that they adopt the line of demarcation that they have drawn and not another. This line of demarcation should never be presented as between communists and non-communists, because it is precisely the only line that prevents actually organizing collaboration.
The line of demarcation, invented or exploited, must be between bourgeoisie and proletariat, imperialists and anti-imperialists, oligarchy and people, etc., but never between communism and anti-communism. Precisely that demarcation that excludes the communism-anti-communism opposition, allows communism to attract to itself, little by little, vast anti-communist sectors, and attract them by making them practice the dialectical game that they impose on public opinion.
We must emphasize this. Communism seeks to attract non-Communists to itself. To do so, it has to offer them disjunctives (which are not precisely communism-anticommunism), and in which they would take sides, placing themselves on the side on which communism is placed. So for example the dilemma or imperialism or anti-imperialism. Of course, you do not have to be a communist to be anti-imperialist. Well, communism will thus play this disjunctive, or imperialism or anti-imperialism , which, on the one hand, will divide the population of a country, imperialist and anti-imperialist, and then will try to reserve the management of anti-imperialism, with that, for the same reason, he will handle all anti-imperialist forces, including those who do not want to be communists, as his own.
In summary:
1. Modernist Rome sought to attract the unruly Lefebvristas
2. offering them a new disjunctive (canonical regularization because they are Catholics, like them), avoiding posing the contrast in doctrinal matters (insurmountable)
3. and dividing the field then between "accordists" and "non-accord" , reserving the management of the "accordists" and seeking to remove those who would oppose that "agreement" (hence the elimination of Ecclesia Dei and that is why the internal purges in the SSPX)
4 In this way, the Lefebvristas collaborate with the modernists , against what Mons. Lefebvre once told Cardinal Ratzinger: "We can not collaborate with you because we pursue different ends. You seek to destroy everything that is Catholic, and we restore it. "
It is not necessary - at least for the moment and exclusively - for the SSPX to leave the Tridentine Mass, or the rest of its traditional "treasure" , the important thing is that it agrees to collaborate with those who destroy the Catholic Church . They are doing it now (the most obvious case is that of marriages).
The Apostles were expelled from the ѕуηαgσgυєs because they preached a different - and opposite - religion from the Jєωιѕн one, and they could not exist both at the same time. The current FSSPX will be accepted as long as it ceases to preach that both the Catholic and the modernist religions of two different and incompatible religions are treated. Already the acceptance of being part of the same pluralist space, demonstrates a concession -except in the doctrinal, yes in the moral- on the part of the SSPX .
Dissent is always welcome, when it is tolerant, because it is harmless . And it is above all harmless when ideas are attacked in the abstract, but it is left untouched to its agents and propagators . Rome knows that the SSPX grew and became a great adversary while it remained frontally enemy of her, irreducible, hard. Today, they can continue to be contrary but no longer contradictory. That will cause the FSSPX to begin to decrease and shut down. Rome, today Francisco, has the upper hand.
Juan Hunyadi
Topic: Communist dialectic from Rome applied to the SSPX (Read 457 times)