This is some of the best part I've read so far -- I can't agree enough:
It is foreseeable that some will object to the inclusion of certain writings in the collection which follows, for a variety of reasons: Perhaps it will be argued that this or that priest was always a disciplinary problem, and that objecting to the ralliement policies of Bishop Fellay was merely a manifestation of this pre-existing condition. Perhaps it will be said that another was already on a trajectory toward independence, and opposition to a practical accord merely provided an “honorable exit” for the inevitable departure. Or perhaps it will be said that still others were resentful of reassignment (or had other internal political concerns), and these considerations were the true cause of their resistance.
Aside from questioning the motives of some of these priests, others might object that I should not have included the writings of priests or religious who ended up embracing sedevacantism, or the writings of those who ultimately returned to the SSPX (or never having left it, fell back into silent complicity), or the writings of those who would later fall into open conflict with the bishops of the Resistance.
Against all of these arguments, I reply that this book is neither hagiographical nor polemical, but historical. It is the internal strength or weakness of the docuмents themselves which is here held up to scrutiny (and praise), regardless of any ad hominem arguments which can be made against any of the various authors, with or without merit. Either their contents are well-founded, docuмented (or docuмentable), and/or corroborated by external evidence, or they are not. Let them be judged according to their own merits, and not along factional lines.
Yes, choosing to WORK WITH or ATTEND MASS with some priests is problematic. But when it comes to a common position on the SSPX -- we're talking abstract here -- it should be easy enough to "all just get along".
I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why the writings of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, for example, shouldn't be included. He's ONE MORE VOICE that thinks there's a problem in the SSPX. Sure, he has a whole volume of problems now, mostly thanks to the influence of a certain diabolical warlock. But is Fr. Pfeiffer correct about the SSPX post-2012? YOU BET. While we're at it, I'm sure he's 100% orthodox on devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as well. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Let's put it this way -- the Resistance isn't big and united for various fundamental reasons. Much the same reasons as Tradition itself, I would argue! (The Resistance is just a microcosm of, or even a synonym for, the Traditional Movement). Priests/bishops have always disagreed and refused to work with each other in the Traditional Movement. Let's be realistic: being Trad means you're a leader, NOT a follower, you think for yourself, etc. So a random group of 100 Trads are going to have a harder time getting along than 100 random Americans. But when it comes time to rip the Novus Ordo a new one, I think most Trad priests/bishops writings should be brought to bear ALL AT ONCE, for full effect.
Likewise, when trying to convince the reader that there is "something rotten in Denmark" in the SSPX, why not produce writings of ALL Resistance priests, even those who went independent or who don't get along on various issues (Sedevacantism?) because let's face it -- on the SSPX, they're all 100% united.
Topic: Re: Resistance Writings Compilation Comments/Questions (Read 2155 times)