Number CCCXXI (321)   7 September 2013

RESISTANCE, ORGANIZE ?

The debate continues as to whether and how today’s “Resistance” should be organized (let us here define “Resistance” as former members or followers of the Society of St Pius X so upset with its recently manifest change of direction as to take action of some kind to resist that change). Broadly speaking, the (relative) youngsters want an organisation to co-ordinate action and make it more effective, while the oldsters tend to think that any structured organisation is no longer possible or even desirable in today’s chaotic circuмstances.

To begin with, one must take the measure of the chaos. It comes essentially from the shepherd being struck and the sheep scattered (Zech. XIII, 7; Mt. XXVI, 31). Whether it believes it or not, whether it likes it or not, for the whole world that shepherd is the Catholic Pope. As we observe today, if he goes crazy then nobody in the whole wide world can restore order. This is because the Incarnate God made his Church the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. V, 13-14), and he designed that Church as a monarchy, a design which not even Vatican II could undo. Therefore nobody can take the Pope’s place, and if he says things like, “Who am I to condemn a God-seeking ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?”, as the present occupant of the See of Peter said recently, then “chaos is come again”, and there is very little that one can do about it, besides praying for God to intervene.

Notwithstanding, Archbishop Lefebvre did all he could, and by the mercy of God he created an island of sanity and order, the SSPX. But, naturally, under pressure from one Conciliar Pope after another, his successors have given way. They ask, “How can we be Catholic and disobey the Pope?” – more confusion and chaos. However the Archbishop was so successful in organizing resistance to the Council that a number of those who understand what he was doing wish to organize the resistance to those betraying him. But can it be organized ? That is the question.

A wise colleague, old enough to have campaigned hard and effectively at the Archbishop’s side in the worldwide expansion of the SSPX in the 1970’s and 1980’s, remembers from those early days a number of priests resisting the Council successfully all over the world, which they did independently of one another and of the Archbishop. They listened to him because he talked good Catholic sense, which is why many of them recognized his moral authority, but none of them obeyed him in the strict sense, and he demanded of none of them that obedience. Without the Pope, structured Catholic obedience was, and remains, impossible. My colleague goes on to point out that even the Archbishop’s Society resisted liberal Church and world for only 30, maybe 40, years, and the situation is rather worse now than it was in his day. When the homeland is occupied by an enemy army, my colleague concludes, it is impossible to organize an army of defence, all th at remains is guerrilla warfare.

In my opinion he accurately portrays the increase of the chaos when he writes: “The hour of God and of the immaculate Heart will come (as she has said) only when everything seems lost, which must include the little SSPX. Bishop Fellay’s chief illusion was to have thought that the great SSPX would save the Church, to which the Devil added, “from within, like a Trojan horse”. All that we in fact needed to do was construct Noah’s Ark for the faithful remnant in accordance with the Founder’s plan, and to go on constructing it until the Flood. A deluded leader opened the Ark’s door ahead of time, and the Ark was flooded. God have mercy upon us all. The leader was not Noah, but the Captain of the Titanic.”

Kyrie eleison.

Could some one please clarify for me who HE means by "Captain of the Titanic."
Is that referring  to +F?  
 :confused1:

The debate continues as to whether and how today’s “Resistance” should be organized (let us here define “Resistance” as former members or followers of the Society of St Pius X so upset with its recently manifest change of direction as to take action of some kind to resist that change). Broadly speaking, the (relative) youngsters want an organisation to co-ordinate action and make it more effective, while the oldsters tend to think that any structured organisation is no longer possible or even desirable in today’s chaotic circuмstances.

To begin with, one must take the measure of the chaos. It comes essentially from the shepherd being struck and the sheep scattered (Zech. XIII, 7; Mt. XXVI, 31). Whether it believes it or not, whether it likes it or not, for the whole world that shepherd is the Catholic Pope. As we observe today, if he goes crazy then nobody in the whole wide world can restore order. This is because the Incarnate God made his Church the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. V, 13-14), and he designed that Church as a monarchy, a design which not even Vatican II could undo. Therefore nobody can take the Pope’s place, and if he says things like, “Who am I to condemn a God-seeking ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?”, as the present occupant of the See of Peter said recently, then “chaos is come again”, and there is very little that one can do about it, besides praying for God to intervene. Thank God ++ABL didn't feel that way. I don't understand why you do.

Notwithstanding, Archbishop Lefebvre did all he could, and by the mercy of God he created an island of sanity and order, the SSPX. But, naturally, under pressure from one Conciliar Pope after another, his successors have given way. They ask, “How can we be Catholic and disobey the Pope?” – more confusion and chaos. However the Archbishop was so successful in organizing resistance to the Council that a number of those who understand what he was doing wish to organize the resistance to those betraying him. But can it be organized ? That is the question. Your Excellency, isn't the question how, because it certainly can be.

A wise colleague, old enough to have campaigned hard and effectively at the Archbishop’s side in the worldwide expansion of the SSPX in the 1970’s and 1980’s, remembers from those early days a number of priests resisting the Council successfully all over the world, which they did independently of one another and of the Archbishop. They listened to him because he talked good Catholic sense, which is why many of them recognized his moral authority, but none of them obeyed him in the strict sense, and he demanded of none of them that obedience. But what did they accomplish compared to the SSPX Your Excellency?Without the Pope, structured Catholic obedience was, and remains, impossible. Really? You seem to have just dismissed in a single sentence the entire work of ++ABL and your part in it! My colleague goes on to point out that even the Archbishop’s Society resisted liberal Church and world for only 30, maybe 40, years, and the situation is rather worse now than it was in his day. When the homeland is occupied by an enemy army, my colleague concludes, it is impossible to organize an army of defence, all that remains is guerrilla warfare.


In my opinion he accurately portrays the increase of the chaos when he writes: “The hour of God and of the immaculate Heart will come (as she has said) only when everything seems lost, which must include the little SSPX. Bishop Fellay’s chief illusion was to have thought that the great SSPX would save the Church, to which the Devil added, “from within, like a Trojan horse”. All that we in fact needed to do was construct Noah’s Ark for the faithful remnant in accordance with the Founder’s plan, and to go on constructing it until the Flood. A deluded leader opened the Ark’s door ahead of time, and the Ark was flooded. God have mercy upon us all. The leader was not Noah, but the Captain of the Titanic.”

Kyrie eleison.

What a disappointing piece of despair from someone I love so much.

The debate continues as to whether and how today’s “Resistance” should be organized (let us here define “Resistance” as former members or followers of the Society of St Pius X so upset with its recently manifest change of direction as to take action of some kind to resist that change). Broadly speaking, the (relative) youngsters want an organisation to co-ordinate action and make it more effective, while the oldsters tend to think that any structured organisation is no longer possible or even desirable in today’s chaotic circuмstances.

To begin with, one must take the measure of the chaos. It comes essentially from the shepherd being struck and the sheep scattered (Zech. XIII, 7; Mt. XXVI, 31). Whether it believes it or not, whether it likes it or not, for the whole world that shepherd is the Catholic Pope. As we observe today, if he goes crazy then nobody in the whole wide world can restore order. This is because the Incarnate God made his Church the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. V, 13-14), and he designed that Church as a monarchy, a design which not even Vatican II could undo. Therefore nobody can take the Pope’s place, and if he says things like, “Who am I to condemn a God-seeking ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?”, as the present occupant of the See of Peter said recently, then “chaos is come again”, and there is very little that one can do about it, besides praying for God to intervene. Thank God ++ABL didn't feel that way. I don't understand why you do.

Notwithstanding, Archbishop Lefebvre did all he could, and by the mercy of God he created an island of sanity and order, the SSPX. But, naturally, under pressure from one Conciliar Pope after another, his successors have given way. They ask, “How can we be Catholic and disobey the Pope?” – more confusion and chaos. However the Archbishop was so successful in organizing resistance to the Council that a number of those who understand what he was doing wish to organize the resistance to those betraying him. But can it be organized ? That is the question. Your Excellency, isn't the question how, because it certainly can be.

A wise colleague, old enough to have campaigned hard and effectively at the Archbishop’s side in the worldwide expansion of the SSPX in the 1970’s and 1980’s, remembers from those early days a number of priests resisting the Council successfully all over the world, which they did independently of one another and of the Archbishop. They listened to him because he talked good Catholic sense, which is why many of them recognized his moral authority, but none of them obeyed him in the strict sense, and he demanded of none of them that obedience. But what did they accomplish compared to the SSPX Your Excellency?Without the Pope, structured Catholic obedience was, and remains, impossible. Really? You seem to have just dismissed in a single sentence the entire work of ++ABL and your part in it! My colleague goes on to point out that even the Archbishop’s Society resisted liberal Church and world for only 30, maybe 40, years, and the situation is rather worse now than it was in his day. When the homeland is occupied by an enemy army, my colleague concludes, it is impossible to organize an army of defence, all that remains is guerrilla warfare.


In my opinion he accurately portrays the increase of the chaos when he writes: “The hour of God and of the immaculate Heart will come (as she has said) only when everything seems lost, which must include the little SSPX. Bishop Fellay’s chief illusion was to have thought that the great SSPX would save the Church, to which the Devil added, “from within, like a Trojan horse”. All that we in fact needed to do was construct Noah’s Ark for the faithful remnant in accordance with the Founder’s plan, and to go on constructing it until the Flood. A deluded leader opened the Ark’s door ahead of time, and the Ark was flooded. God have mercy upon us all. The leader was not Noah, but the Captain of the Titanic.”

Kyrie eleison.

What a disappointing piece of despair from someone I love so much.

A realist looks like a pessimist to an optimist.

Don't be too hard on the good bishop.  He is the only one you have.

He knows the characters of most of the people heading it, better than anyone here.  Perhaps in his prudential judgement it would have problems being lead by any one of them.

The people who start revolutions are not always the best people to lead the country after them.

Whatever his reasons are, I am sure they are well thought through and based on plenty of data.  He's a clever man we can all agree on that.

Perhaps his caution is the right way.

The basis for the bishop's position is the Roman incuмbent heads two churches, traditional and conciliar. He dismisses the latter and relies on the former. I believe the Society now makes no distinction: Rome is not so broken that it needs rebuilding and recommissioning. The bishop and the Society can then only limit their disobedience and Rome even at her worst controls how far they can resist.

The solution outside the SSPX (which keeps pressing for special treatment inside a chaotic church) then means at best scattered independent parishes well into the future. The thinking is no parallel entity claiming the eternal truths of the Church can be allowed to organise and grow unless all ties with Rome are severed. ABL no doubt gave much thought to how far he could take this, as far as consecrating four bishops in fact. Since then there has been much drawing back and I suspect Bp. W is reluctant to go as far as ABL. Maybe because today's trads are not like yesterday's and SSPX copies would also end up as more inauthentic revivalist entities preoccupied with market share.

Interestingly, the bishop dismisses the authority of the SSPX while reverting to that embedded in two church/one pope theory. This is good because it restores some equality among various parts of the remnant even if that theory is not for them.

Steve Jobs has been booted out of Apple, Inc.  Some would claim unjustly.

He can either sit around moaning about it and living off his millions staring angrily at his one remaining Apple stock certificate or he can start NeXT and finance Pixar animation and move on with his life.

I met Jobs around 1989 when I was working for a US firm called Businessland.  Had brief chat over a dinner he attended because Businessland had just agreed to sell the Mcintosh computer and I had hit my target by closing a deal with Chiat Day Mojo an advertising agency in London.  I have never subscribed to the bastard theory, I found him simply very focused and driven to achieve his goals.  But he was not dismissive of me or an arrogant a$$.  I didn't suck up to him either, but I did realise that he must have something special about him and there was probably something I could learn.  I observed, asked questions, listened.

The resistance need to do the same.  Stop bitching about the SSPX and go out and build a better mousetrap.  Chapels where the priests are holier and draw people to them like the Cure d'Ars did when he inherited a broken down parish.  The SSPX is far from perfect.  I have a list of stories as long as both of my arms of injustices, calumnies, clashes, denunciations from the pulpit, lunacy etc,.  The FSSP is not perfect either, some of their priests are wishy washy and compromised.  Pope Francis probably has another 7-10 years and he says Masses with inflatable dinosaurs so change seems unlikely from the direction anytime soon.

Chastisement might come and save us, but people were hoping that with even greater vigor back in the 1980s, I recall.

Talk is cheap and hotheaded statements on the Internet prove nothing.  Resistance supporters should eat rice or pasta for Lent and Advent, and donate what they save in groceries to the resistance priests.  Unemployed Internet pundits should go and get a job, even one flipping burgers and donate every extra dollar they make to the resistance's travel fund.  Priests should focus on getting around, delivering the sacraments and being holier.  Not fighting each other, not picking on parishioners or allowing them to pick on each other.

If the resistance could produce a Cure of Ars then most Trads would be won over, myself included.  In principle, I can see where you are coming from, much like I can see the arguments of the SVs are credible and have merit.  The problem is that I know some people in the resistance in the UK and have observed comments on here and a significant proportion, especially those with the loudest voices, are incompetent tossers who have failed at many of the things they have tried to do in life.  People who cannot hold down a job or function effectively in the world.  I don't think they are likely to surprise me.

I don't understand some of ggreg's thinking (I am still hoping he will respond to what I wrote earlier regarding his views about the faith). I also don't understand why he must constantly refer to his successes in the world.

However, I do think he makes a point. Can the resistance's raison d'etre simply be an attack on the failure of the SSPX? Is that it?

What will the resistance offer to the world which is starving for truth? This doesn't mean a watering down of the Faith. Nor does it mean a "re-branding."

I believe Fr Patrick Girouard has a good take on things.

I also believe Bishop Williamson's course of action is wise.