Both Clemens Maria and Sbyvl speak of "missed opportunities".
God doesn't miss anything. You still talk as if the Crisis had been meant to end after 10 years, but it's gone on for 45 thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Don't you think God is in control? If God wanted it to end 10 years ago, trust me, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Maybe it's part of the chastisement.
I suppose it could be argued that Archbishop Lefebvre played a negative but necessary role like Judas. Still, I would disagree with that. Judas committed a very clear-cut and evil mortal sin: betraying his Master. Did the Archbishop really do something like that? He kept a very Catholic mindset during the whole crisis, and up till recently, his organization the SSPX was doing the most to help souls and solve the Crisis. I just don't see the bad fruits there. On the contrary, there were countless good fruits and that is why they were so popular.
You can't use the Novus Ordo is even more popular argument to slam the SSPX. That alone says nothing. So just because it's more popular means it's worse? So...eating food is objectively wrong, and those who eat ash and dirt are the true remnant? Sometimes the majority is right!
Just because the SSPX failed eventually (under +Fellay) doesn't mean it was rotten from the beginning, as many suggest.
The lights went out, and we are in crisis. Trying to analyze and criticize each individual extension of a person's arm to feel his way around in the dark, each bump into a piece of furniture, each step taken in the wrong direction -- kind of pointless. The real problem is the fact that the lights went out! I'm sure all the men in that room were trying to find their way honestly.
Matthew,
I am not asserting that God has "missed" anything, however, I do not believe it inconsistent with Catholic theology to hold that men may fail to recognize an opportunity being presented to them by God to achieve something of benefit. Therefore, I believe this truism may be applied to our present situation. There were quite clearly many opportunities to resolve this Crisis several decades ago, yet here we are, fifty-seven years into the interregnum, with no end in sight. The principal reason for this, as I and several others see it, is the overall complacent attitude of Catholics towards the situation, and their inordinate comfort in the traditionalist chapels of their choice. Many Catholics have unfortunately begun to implicitly regard the Crisis as a semi-permanent phenomenon, and therefore have paid little, if any, thought to how the Crisis will be resolved.
Being that I would certainly not seek to compare Archbishop Lefebvre, a misguided but otherwise holy prelate, to the betrayer of Our Lord, and certainly have not done so in the past, the line of questioning you present seeking to distinguish the two is quite unnecessary.
With regards to the "Novus Ordo is more popular argument", that is the logical conclusion to the argument you presented in the opening post of this thread,that the relative popularity of the recognize-and-resist positon over the sedevacantist position can somehow be used as evidence in an attempt to prove the correctness of the R&R position, which is patently absurd. Unfortunately, I am afraid I do not quite understand the point you attempted to convey with your analogy, so perhaps you could be so kind as to clarify that for us.
The attempts by Bishop Fellay to unite the SSPX to the Conciliar religion, and the subsequent rebellion by Bishop Williamson & Co., if nothing else serve to demonstrate for Catholics yet again the absurdity of the recognize-and-resist viewpoint. Unfortunately, the "positon of the Archbishop" and the "position of the Society" have all but replaced Catholic theology as it pertains to the present Crisis. On this point I refer specifically to the certainly erroneous, if not outright heretical, view of the SSPX and its adherents that a valid ecuмenical council can teach err on matters of faith and morals. This opinion has exactly zero basis in Catholic teaching, but as it is the "position of the Society", it has been accepted by many unfortunate souls as a legitimate opinion to hold to.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Archbishop Lefebvre or his followers. However, in this time of extraordinary crisis, I believe it is is our obligation to adhere to what the Church has taught, rathr than to a positon that is held by a particular organization we happen to like.