CathInfo.com

Two issues, Lad.

1. How is the thing you're attacking any different from the fundamental charter of the Traditional Movement? Namely, that we need to *de facto* go our own way, be aloof, and keep the faith in "lifeboat" chapels, basically ignoring Church Authority which has fundamentally become Modernist.

2. Yes, you make good points, but the Crisis in the Church is unprecedented, a great punishment from God, and basically a supernatural mystery.

3. With a few extreme, sad exceptions, no Trad has "started their own Church". So I take issue with that. Starting a lifeboat chapel is not the same as starting a new Church or a new religion. +Lefebvre (and his many successors) were never interested in deviating ONE IOTA from being CATHOLIC. THAT is why they did the "Traditional" thing in the first place! They wanted to stay Catholic, not become Protestant.

It's Trad 101 that we have to choose now between Truth and Authority. If you ask me, Truth comes before Authority. God only gave authority to the Pope FOR THE SAKE OF maintaining the True Religion -- not so he could do his own thing, or start his own new religion. When he does that, he does that as a PRIVATE MAN and NOT as Pope. In other words, Church Authority was set up for the sake of the Truth, and not vice-versa. Truth comes first.

4. How does your position not lead to the inevitable conclusion that we should abandon the Trad. movement and go "church shopping" for the least offensive Novus Ordo chapel? Sorry, but while plenty of men have chosen this route over the past decades, it's NOT FOR ME and I'm willing to stake my ETERNITY on that.

God gave me a brain and I've observed where the "conservative Novus Ordo" path has led. Not impressed. I'll take my chances with Tradition, with all its imperfections, infighting, limitations, warts and faults.

1) Sure, for all practical intents and purposes there's no difference between, say, a Resistance group and an SV group ... in terms of remaining aloof from the Conciliar Church.  But theology and Catholic doctrine and, as Bishop Williamson always said, ideas "matter".  There are huge implications in terms of Catholic ecclesiology between the Resistance view of the Church and the SV view.  I see a real danger in the R&R position becoming barely distinguishable from Old Catholicism.

2) Yes, of course this is an unprecedented Crisis, the worst in Church history by far.  Both Resistance and SVs agree on that.  Motarians, Conciliars, and Novus Ordites do not.  But, again, how one comes to terms with it can have a profound effect on one's Catholic theology and one's doctrine.

3) Well, by starting a "church", I meant setting up a parallel apostolate ... running chapels, administering Sacraments, etc. outside of the Church's jurisdiction.  I tend to eschew the term "apostolate" because of how badly it's been abused by the Conciliars.  For this particular point, there have been precedents, such as when St. Athanasius and the other anti-Arian bishops went around consecrating bishops to run parallel to the Arians who had usurped the Sees.  But that wasn't really the point.  What my point was that if we're basically forced to sever communion with the Catholic hierarchy on account of their Magisterium and their Mass, that would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.

This conflict between Truth and Authority does occur on one level.  But on the higher level faith is in fact an act of obedience.  There is no supernatural faith without the proper formal motive of faith.  We do not believe in the Holy Trinity because we recognize its truthfulness.  We submit on the authority of God revealing.  So the act of faith is in fact essentially an act of obedience.  This is taught clearly at Vatican I (and by all Catholic authorities).

In any case, if you consider Father Chazal to be genuine Resistance, he has articulated a view of the Crisis that does NOT do damage to the prerogatives of the Church, to the Magisterium and to the Catholic Mass.  So I would urge (as I have urged in the past) for those of the Resistance to prayerfully consider his position.  It's perfectly sound.

Finally, if people would stop reading things into Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the Archbishop upheld the MAJOR of the SV position, namely, that the Holy Spirit protects the Papacy and does not allow it to destroy the Church to this degree.  He repeatedly affirmed that.  Father Ringrose, one of the founding thought leaders in the original Resistance, posted the audio of a speech given by the Archbishop where he explicitly stated this.  So, his reasons for not fully embracing an SV view were questions regarding the MINOR of the SV position.  He (rightly) didn't feel that he had the certainty of faith regarding the minor to embrace it completely, leaving some room for doubt and for the mystery.  But he would NEVER agree that the Papal authority could corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass to the degree that the Conciliar papal claimants have ... apart from his more conciliatory period between about 1978 and 1984.  Before that and after about 1984, leading up to Assisi, he came a hair's breadth from publicly embracing SVism.  In fact, shortly before Assisi, he stated that for nearly 20 years he and +de Castro Mayer "preferred to wait" to come out publicly as SVs, due to their lack of certainty, but said that he might have no choice (if Assisi were to happen ... and it did) to hold that the Holy See has been vacant.  In fact, credible sources report that +de Castro Mayer did in fact become a sedevacantist from about the time of the episcopal consecrations, going around at Econe telling people "we have no pope" and continuing in that belief until his death.