“RESISTANCE” FAILING?

Some readers of these Comments no doubt objected to the reference made last week (EC 370) to the “Resistance” presently making “little apparent headway.” They might have preferred a valiant call to arms. But we must stay real. For instance, when the Traditional diocese of Campos in Brazil fell back into the arms of Newrome back in 2001, did not several of us say that out of some 25 priests formed in Bishop de Castro Mayer’s school, at least a few would break ranks? Yet not one of them has gone independent since then to continue defending Tradition as Campos had always defended it, and so all of them are more or less on the neo-modernist slide. However, if we do stay real, there is not nothing to be said.

First of all, God is God, and he is conducting this crisis his way and not ours. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, your ways are not my ways, says the Lord” (Is. LV, 8). We dream of the clear-sighted priests and laity banding together to stand up to his enemies, but God does not need anybody’s “Resistance” to look after his sheep or save his Church. Forty years ago when Archbishop Lefebvre hoped for and looked for a handful of fellow-bishops to stand beside him in public and throw up a real road-block in the way of the Conciliar steam-roller, surely he might have found them, but he never did. In fact when God intervenes to save the situation, as he certainly will, it will be obvious that the rescue was his doing, through his Mother.

Secondly, more than five centuries of rampant humanism have made man so ignorant of God, the Lord God of Hosts, that mankind has to be taught a lesson which it will not learn except the hard way. The ninth of St Ignatius’ 14 Rules for the Discernment of Spirits (first week) gives three main reasons for a soul’s spiritual desolation, which can be applied to the Church’s present desolation:—

1. God punishes us for our spiritual lukewarmness and negligence. God alone knows today just what a worldwide chastisement is deserved by our worldwide apostasy and plunge into materialism and hedonism.

2. God puts us to the trial to show us what is really inside us, and how we depend on him. Does not modern man seriously think that he can do a better job of running the universe than Almighty God? And might it be that the truth will not sink in until all of his own little efforts have failed?

3. God humbles us with desolation to cut short our pride and vainglory. Coming from the chief ministers of the one true religion of the one true God, was not Vatican II an unprecedented outburst of human vainglory, preferring man’s modern world to God’s unchanging Church? And the little Society of St Pius X thought that it could save the Church? Unless the “Resistance” remains duly modest in its claims and ambitions, it is doomed in advance.

Then what should those ambitions be? First and foremost, to keep the Faith, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. XI, 6), and which is expressed in doctrine, in the Catholic Creed. Secondly, to give witness to that Faith, especially by example, if necessary unto martyrdom (“martyr” is the Greek word for “witness”). So howsoever the “Resistance” is or is not organized, it must devote its resources, however meagre, to whatever will help souls to keep the Faith. Then, since its stand for the Truth is bound to be recognizable as such, merely by existing it will not be failing, because it will be giving witness.

Kyrie eleison.

This is a very good article.

More than five centuries of rampant humanism have made man so ignorant of God, the Lord God of Hosts

Indeed.

Mainly, we are responsible for our own downfall and withdrawal of God's grace, as a result of our sins and negligence.

God will not forsake a soul who has not forsaken Him first.

The actual crisis in the Church is the result of the collective dismissal of Truth and the willing adherence of error.

2Thes2:10-12 "And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity".

The "resistance" is now far less in percentage than at the time of the
reformation under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. At lease
there was two Bishops that did not go along with separation from
the Church.
You have to be very strong in faith to be part of the "resistance"
and because of all the preparations for Vatican 2 even in the time
of Pius XII, and the aftermath.  So few actually know their religion.
Even those whom call themselves Traditional Catholics.
The ignorance is appalling even what sometimes I read even in this
forum.  
We have become so polluted by the interpretations and the teachings
of Vatican 2.  That we always have to obey authority even when it
has proven that the authority are clearly wrong, and are teaching
heresies  and out of step from clear church teaching.
The only solution to this is more prayer, fasting, stay away from
sins. And know your Faith by trusted sources.

Did ABL really go out of his way to assemble a body of prelates that would challenge the Vatican and the new direction? One hears stories of him going with the flow or being undecided as to the true nature of the changes ..... and changes there would be if a council was being called! The bishop likes to dwell upon ABL's clarity of mind .... something I dispute .... and build him up as the only resistance to V2. But there was resistance before him and full-hearted resistance at that! And why would resistance necessarily congregate around ABL and create a role which paradoxically the bishop now rejects for himself?

1. Yes, he did. Go back and read (don't skim) the history books about Vatican II and ABL's biographies. Do you think you are the only/first one to think of such a solution? Don't be ridiculous! It was the first thing +ABL tried. He was the head, in fact, of the "International Group of Fathers" which was a conservative bloc opposing the Modernist changes. What he and his group did was effectively minimize the "damage" (but, unfortunately, it only made the errors more subtle, i.e., the famous Catholic-heretical sandwich that is the V2 docuмents) Anyhow, he did what he could.

2. "One hears stories..." You can't believe everything you hear, or read. The Internet is full of error. Anyone with a pulse can start a website; the cost of entry is even lower than writing a book (which anyone can do). I heard stories that you're a troll, but I don't believe they're true.  :wink:

3. Yet +ABL's resistance is the only one that took off to any degree. All the Indult groups came later -- as offshoots of the SSPX. Even the CMRI was a Shuckhardt cult with lots of problems in the beginning -- even current-day CMRI fans would admit that. The SSPV didn't exist yet either, as they ALSO benefited by the SSPX movement in general: its contacts, parishioners, funds, buildings, and priestly formation that The Nine received.

4. What happened to this "full-hearted resistance"? You make it sound like it was BETTER than what +ABL offered the world. You make it sound like he co-opted, out-competed, and then destroyed the traditional resistance to modernism. Explain yourself!

I basically agree with you. I do not believe that the Archbishop consecrated these men to confront the conciliar church and hierarchy, but primarily as a necessary means of continuing the Catholic priesthood.

Given that all men have free will, and as you say the strong call of the world and one's own leanings and inclinations. There are few who are inspired to the fight in our time.  

Each man has the choice. The two bishops who has a momentary rally of conscience, but then receded into the safety of the familiar more pedestrian role that they were used to.

There will be future bishops, I am sure, who will find the call to battle undeniable and irresistable.

My point was, (barring a late in life inspiration),  that if any the four bishops had been called to militant action by their consciences, they would have long ago answered and would not be where they are today.
It is not a critique of them, only an observation.

I basically agree with you. I do not believe that the Archbishop consecrated these men to confront the conciliar church and hierarchy, but primarily as a necessary means of continuing the Catholic priesthood.

Given that all men have free will, and as you say the strong call of the world and one's own leanings and inclinations. There are few who are inspired to the fight in our time.  

Each man has the choice. The two bishops who has a momentary rally of conscience, but then receded into the safety of the familiar more pedestrian role that they were used to.

There will be future bishops, I am sure, who will find the call to battle undeniable and irresistable.

My point was, (barring a late in life inspiration),  that if any the four bishops had been called to militant action by their consciences, they would have long ago answered and would not be where they are today.
It is not a critique of them, only an observation.

So when you said "they" you meant the 4 bishops?

See, the 4 bishops weren't in the conversation at all. You seemed to be responding to the quote, "Did ABL really go out of his way to assemble a body of prelates that would challenge the Vatican and the new direction?"

You interpreted that as talking about the 4 bishops. No wonder you had me scratching my head!

I didn't take that quote as talking about the four bishops at all. For one thing, +ABL didn't "assemble" the 4 bishops, he CONSECRATED the four bishops. I thought the original quote was talking about rallying existing bishops to the cause, and getting things moving against Modernism unto a conversion of Rome. You know, trying to network, work hard, and really make an effort to fix things rather than slinking off into a bunker somewhere and wait for the end.

Well, +ABL can never be criticized as having a bunker mentality. Just read his biographies. He was neck-deep in the fight and enlisted anyone who was willing to work with him.

Did ABL really go out of his way to assemble a body of prelates that would challenge the Vatican and the new direction? One hears stories of him going with the flow or being undecided as to the true nature of the changes ..... and changes there would be if a council was being called! The bishop likes to dwell upon ABL's clarity of mind .... something I dispute .... and build him up as the only resistance to V2. But there was resistance before him and full-hearted resistance at that! And why would resistance necessarily congregate around ABL and create a role which paradoxically the bishop now rejects for himself?

In all fairness, ABL did not have the advantage of 50 year's of hindsight that we have today to assess the train wreck we are dealing with.

Also, he worked very hard on the schemas for the Council, which were ultimately tossed in the wastebasket.

H.E.

Quote

And the little Society of St Pius X thought that it could save the Church? Unless the “Resistance” remains duly modest in its claims and ambitions, it is doomed in advance.

The "little Society" has not saved the Church.  Taking into consideration all of H.E.'s cautionary remarks from the past, I would guess that he never thought it could.  The "Resistance" is probably in quotes because it may in his mind be more fantasy than reality.  The inference is obvious: If the "little Society" could not save the Church, the "Resistance" is certainly not going to do so.  I don't think Bp. Williamson wants to create another movement, which in 30 years time might end up as the SSPX has, with another Bp. Fellay at the helm.  Either Our Lady steps in directly, or we continue to lurch along at a petty pace.

I think that you have made a good point. Fifty years and the conciliar train continues to gain more power and momentum against the Religion.

Tradition is not saved, it is only changing more slowly, being hollowed out by the Incense and lace crowd.