Ah, here we go again. Note the date: Fall of 2005. Just after Ratzinger, a new-rite bishop, was elected.
In other words, as the article of Fr. Pierre Marie (and those of Fr's. Celier and Calderon) transpires within the context of the SSPX ralliement to Rome, were the motivations and conclusions suspect? Stated differently, would the same conclusions have been reached, had the studies taken place while +Lefebvre were still alive (i.e., pre-ralliement)?
Let's stick with the first question:
Playing devil's advocate, one could say that it is not merely the timing of Fr. Pierre-Marie's article which is suspicious, but one could also wonder, given the behind the scenes drama then taking place between the SSPX and Avrille for several years already (read
The Steffeshausen Memorandum for more details), whether Avrille was strongarmed by Menzingen into defending the validity of the NREC (e.g., Was Avrille -already at odds with +Fellay over the ralliement since 2001- worried about losing odinations, financial support, and its very survival if it were to distance itself from Menzingen on this point? This theory could be bolstered by recalling in 2014 how difficult was their break with Menzingen, how discreet their support for the Resistance initially was, and how Avrille did not join the Resistance until Menzingen broke ties: It was not Avrille who declared its allegiance with the Resistance, but Menzingen who told Avrille to get lost.
The obvious problem with this theory is that it rests upon completely rash foundations: To attribute dishonorable motives, even while more honorable and probable explanations exist (such as the following) is unsatisfactory.
For example, another reading of the events of the time, and motivations for the article, is this one:
Upon the elecction of BXVI, Rore Sanctifica (sedevacantists in Europe) wrote an article denying the validity of BXVI. The SSPX and allies sought to refute that argument, sensing in it the damage it could cause to simple souls (or simply because they were not persuaded of the arguments, or both). According to this explaation, that the article of Fr. Pierre Marie, et al, defending the NREC transpired within the immediate context of BXVI's election is the cause, yes, but that it transpired within the greater context of the ralliement is incidental.
The overarching problem here, is that the SSPX lost the trust and moral high ground it once had when it reoriented itself toward a practical accord (just as +de Galarreta said would happen beforehand at Albano in late 2011, in his
Reflections on a Roman Proposal).
My own personal position is that the arguments of Fr. Pierre Marie, et al in favor of the validdity of the NREC are sincere, and that, while the election of BXVI certainly sparked the debate anew, the ralliement was probably incidental to their conclusions, howsoever much it may have garnered favor in Rome.
Whether these arguments in favor of the validity of the NREC are correct or not is another matter, and one in which I am not competent to address. What I am competent to note are the past statements of +de Mallerais expressing doubt, which seems not to be dealt with, the doubts raised by Fr. Calderon's study, and the color these two elements give to yielding an easy assent to the certain validity of the NREC. That the changes transspire amidst the post-conciliar revolution colors the rite still further.
Ultimately, I don't know whether these causes for doubt are well-founded or not. All I know is that I would not use them exxcept in case of necessity (i.e., when doubtful rites would be better than no rites at all).
Topic: +Huonder to Consecrate SSPX Holy Oils (Read 13726 times)