CONCILIAR POPES – IV

July 11, 2015
Number CDXVII (417)
 
Of “mind-rot” did the Archbishop never speak?
With other words he too said minds are weak.

Many readers of these “Comments” presently find they are treating too often of sedevacantism, or of the position that the See of Rome is vacant, i.e. no Pope since Vatican II has been a real Pope. Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion in order not to lose his Catholic faith, let him hold it, because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6). But the opinion in itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the faith, and that is why these “Comments” are so insistent on discouraging sedevacantism. From an opinion it becomes all too easily a dogma, then the super-dogma and the measure of whether one is Catholic or not, from where it can slide into complete disbelief in the structural Church and into “home-aloning,” even to loss of one’s Catholic faith. Consider what Archbishop Lefebvre said (slightly adapted, and with emphasis added) in late 1979 in a conference to Écône seminarians:—

“We must be prudent. It is obvious that if Pope Paul VI was not Pope, then the Cardinals he appointed are not Cardinals, so they cannot have elected John-Paul I, and they cannot have validly elected John-Paul II, that much is clear. I don’t think one can say such things. I think these are exaggerations, arguing in a manner too absolute and too rapid. I think the reality is more complex.

“I think that those who argue like this are in a certain way forgetting moral theology and ethics. They are being too speculative. Moral theology and ethics teach us to reason and to judge of people and their acts according to a whole context of circuмstances which we must take into account: “Who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when” – all seven circuмstances must be examined if we are to judge of the morality of an act. So we cannot remain in the pure stratosphere, one might say, in the realm of pure dogmatic theology, by pronouncing, for instance, that such an act is heretical, therefore whoever did it is a heretic. But was this person aware of what he was doing, did he do it truly by himself, was he not deceived or forced into doing it?

“I think that here is how to solve the grave problems posed by John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul I. The latter is quoted in the newspapers as having said that he had thought at first that the Council’s new definition of religious liberty was unacceptable because the Church taught the opposite, but on further study of the Council docuмent and all its contents he had realized that the Church was mistaken beforehand. Now I have no idea what were John-Paul I’s exact words, but to say that the Church could be mistaken on such a matter as religious liberty just boggles the mind! However, I put it down to liberal minds. Liberalism is like that. Liberalism both makes a statement and then contradicts it, and if one shows that what it said is not true, then it comes up with another ambiguous formula with a double meaning. The liberal mind is continually floating around, with expressions that are not clear, with things that can be taken two ways . . . . How many things there are like that in the Council, expressions equivocal and unclear, altogether typical of minds adrift, liberal minds . . . . As I see it, I think that the fact that the Pope is a liberal is enough to explain the situation in which we find ourselves.”

Bravo, your Excellency! Is not the Archbishop saying here exactly what these “Comments” have so often been saying? And the reason why these “Comments” have been saying it so often is because they see here the key to avoiding liberalism without having to resort to sedevacantism.

Kyrie eleison.

 :shocked:.......... You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone! .....................

Wessex:

The more I think of it, perpetuating this mythology of the archbishop has itself become a distraction for those who are afraid of harsh reality. How can one base a movement on his terrible ambiguities and uncertainties which the bishop keeps on doing? Is not an atmosphere of doubt intolerable and unhealthy? Of course, further mainstream revolutionary evolution will make this wait and see approach harder and harder to sustain and yet there will always be those motivated by pure imagination.

Wessex got one thumbs up on this post, which means that at least one cathinfo denizen thought he understood what the former was saying.  I do not really.  ABL is oft criticized for one thing and another, more so now as his passing becomes but a faint speck in the rear view mirror.  But whoa! What's this about ABL's "terrible ambiguities and uncertainties?"

  The only viable, and semi-enduring traditional Catholic movement in the world  has been the SSPX. ( Of course, Fellay & Co. are doing their best to screw it all up, and have largely succeeded.)  The only organization on behalf of Catholic restoration, with something of universal name recognition, is SSPX.  The only Catholic clergyman of high rank during and after the advent of the conciliar era, with whom many of us are acquainted, and who openly opposed New Church, was Abp. Lefebvre.  

Are we going to be forced by the likes of Wessex to concede that this, (I would say), great man must now be looked upon, in memoriam, in Wessex's view anyway, as a mass of ambiguities and uncertainties?  a largely mythological character whom hard reality exposes? A figment of our "pure imagination?"

My, my!  I look at these comments as a thinly veiled assault upon the only bishop who, IMO, seems to understand what the Archbishop was about, and is trying to further and preserve his legacy.  I get a  little nervous every time I read something from Wessex in the vein of: "The more I think of it...."  Uh-oh! :shocked:

I think what Wessex is trying to tell anyone who will listen the following, in essence:  The whole Lefebvrian experiment was a bust.  It  didn't work.  It was a cultic myth built up around the person of a largely mythical figure, who was not really what many people thought him to be.  Now we are forced  to deal with his grand inconsistencies and contradictions, and are having a difficult time doing so.  
ABL  did not lay out for us a clear way to move forward, because he himself was never clear about how to go about it.  And the bishop, who many of us feel best represents the Lefebvrian ideal, projects his mentor's uncertainty, as well.  I think that's Wessex in a nutshell. :thinking:

J Paul:  

The Archbishop was a Holy and a humble Catholic. What more can or needs to be said about him?

Well, I think Wessex said a great deal more about him.

All simply because we are not the Ark, we aren't attached to Her (for the time being) and we'll never be the Ark, even if we all attached all of our boats together.

If we are not the Ark and are not attached to her then it means we will lose our souls.

Quote from: Pax Vobis

All simply because we are not the Ark, we aren't attached to Her (for the time being) and we'll never be the Ark, even if we all attached all of our boats together.

If we are not the Ark and are not attached to her then it means we will lose our souls.

It depends on how you define the metaphor.

Usually the metaphor is "spiritual death" = "drowning".  So a lifeboat from the Barque of Peter (like the SSPX) helps souls survive until the boat can be repaired, rebuilt, etc.

I think he's on to something though. A large ship is more stable, you are less likely to get motion sick or tossed around in a storm, or more likely to SURVIVE big storms, etc. A loose network of independent lifeboats CANNOT replace the original boat in many ways, just like a loose network of independent (and faithful) chapels can't replace the Catholic Church in toto.

We're being drowned in metaphors.  :furtive:

In 1964 PaulVI-Montini visited Bombay for the International Eucharistic Congress. Posted were plastered all over the town I was living in at that time: We dont want Pop in India.

Put up by Sedes who didnt believe in the Bad Dad Doctrine?