When two men are found fighting each other, a bystander can always say,
"It takes two to tango!" which means, "If BOTH parties didn't decide to go ahead and fight, there would be no fight. One party started it, but the other party accepted the challenge."
This is not true about the Traditional Movement, nor the Resistance (which is a continuation of the former).
Some simple-minded people might think so. They might muse aloud about "divisions", "sects" or "a house divided against itself". These arguments can be very convincing to the uneducated and the non-thinking person.
But if, in fact, a division/split exists, the ten million dollar question is: Whose fault is it?
If Joe was driving along one Sunday, following all the laws and driving a few miles under the speed limit, and got hit from the side by Bubba who ran a stop light, can a bystander (Alice) lecture BOTH drivers about defensive driving, driving carefully, obeying the laws, "I've been driving 40 years and I NEVER got in an accident.", etc.?
I'm sure Joe wouldn't want to hear Alice's sanctimonious lecture about how she never experienced a car accident. This accident wasn't exactly Joe's fault, and he couldn't avoid it. It was bad luck. Joe would accuse Alice of being simple-minded, and he would be correct!
Luther made a rift from the Catholic Church; it was his fault. He had new doctrines that were at variance with Catholic dogma. But there was "controversy in the Christian world". Should you forget about being Christian, or try to figure out who was in the wrong?
Archbishop Lefebvre found himself apart from the Church structures. There was no unity. But it WAS NOT his fault, because in this case it was the Conciliar Church that had new doctrines at variance with Catholic dogma and practice. Archbishop Lefebvre was merely standing firm and staying Catholic.
Likewise, a group of SSPX Catholics sitting in the pews in May 2012 were busy attending the Tridentine Mass and saying their Rosaries when it went public what +Fellay was up to. The "Letter of the One to the Three" and the "Letter of the Three to the One" were leaked, and now it became apparent that there was a serious split in the SSPX. But, again, the question is: Whose fault?
The Catholics that simply want to continue +Lefebvre's mission, or the youngsters who have new ideas, who think they can do better than the Archbishop, etc. and start implementing wholesale changes to the organization on a global scale?
I'm thinking it's the fault of the revolutionaries in both cases. The fault of the ones pushing change.
And no, I'm not talking about changing where you attend Mass. That is merely a reaction to the CHANGES being made by the revolutionaries to the existing Mass locations: new doctrines, new sermons, new mission statement, etc.
You see, that's the problem. From far away, those who know nothing of the situation, it looks like you have two sides fighting. Two boys scrapping in the schoolyard. "It takes two to tango. Shame on you for being so divisive!" and in fact, the ignorant (who pride themselves on never going online or reading Trad Catholic forums) will even blame the Resistance ALONE, because to them it's the Resistance trying to push "change" by convincing people to leave and start a new chapel. To them, staying with the SSPX is the "conservative" position and the Resistance is the "radical" position.
Were Traditional Catholics "radicals" when they left their local parishes to eventually start small Traditional Mass chapels? Were the people who stayed behind in their Novus Ordo parishes the "conservatives"?
Yes, it's ironic in both cases, that those who stay the same physically (continuing to go to the same place for Mass) are not staying the same as far as the Faith. The Conciliarists should have had to leave the Church -- that's what all the other protestants throughout history did. The Catholic name should have been left to +Lefebvre and those who believed as he did.
Likewise, in a perfect world +Fellay and his cabal -- including all the accordista priests who believe as he does -- should have left the SSPX to join the FSSP and have their Tridentine Mass under Rome, leaving the SSPX name and property to +Williamson and the other conservatives. But, alas, it is not a perfect world.
So it was a grave injustice, and a chastisement from God. He has His reasons for allowing this.
So let us always remember where the blame belongs, and not blame +Lefebvre for the Crisis in the Church -- nor +Williamson for the Crisis in the SSPX. Neither prelate created those crises -- they just reacted properly and in a Catholic manner to them. Their hands were forced by the dictates of morality, justice, and duty to do what they did.
And their hands are completely spotless of the crime of "division, strife" and all similar charges.
I will say one more thing: even if there were a division in the Resistance, it would behoove each person to look closely and try to figure out who is at fault, being as objective as possible. There might be fault on this or that side, or even BOTH sides. The fault could be A, B, or AB. Those are all valid possibilities.
Topic: It Takes Two to Tango - NOT! (Read 1651 times)