The resistance is proving to have more cracks in it than I hoped it might. *sigh*... You'd think there are people in it for the right reasons( theological, virtuous reasons). I'm sure most are, but it seems inevitable that perhaps people go wherever the strife is...?
Its sort of like that Maurice Pinay; while showing disdain for the Church (and her teachings- ie for the Angelic Doctor) he supports Bishop Williamson. He doesn't support +Williamson for any other reason then the fact that Williamson stands for truth, and that agitates those in power (the media, the Vatican, etc). People like this will always be a part of the traditionalist movement; there is a fringe element here since we're certainly not mainstream Catholics- and this class of person will use this to their advantage.
It is interesting that one of the first things some outspoken layfolk of the Resistance emphasized and ranted about was what Missal or Holy Week rites they thought the Priests of the Resistance ought to use: as if a bunch of laymen can tell a devout and experienced Priest what he should be doing at the Altar, what typical edition of the Roman Missal to use, which Holy Week rites to observe, &c., and be seriously regarded as authorities upon such matters.
Why not trust that the Priests know what they are doing at the Altar when they were brave enough to stand firm on their convictions against abuse of pretended authority and were wise enough to recognize and protest unCatholic harassment?
When the Resistance Priests stuck to the 1962 Missal, the rubrics of which they had learned and with which they were thoroughly experienced, certain layfolk lamented, sighing "Oh what an opportunity lost!"
At the beginning, and even now, some have viewed the Resistance as a chance to thrust their own agendas upon the betrayed and perplexed Catholics who support the Resistance.
Lesson to be learned: good and experienced Priests do not let layfolk (especially those who copy and paste garbage from Traditio and other sites as their substantial proof of their distorted notions of Sacred Liturgy) boss then around regarding such things as how to direct the souls entrusted to their spiritual care and the rubrics and ceremonies of the Roman Missal and Breviary.
Those clerics who do let layfolk boss them around in areas proper to the discretion of Priests alone already show how little they are to be trusted...
But you see, the entire traditional movement (excluding the Indult) is susceptible to this type of error,
which is actually a violation of the virtue of decorum.
Lay people are not the ones that should be owning properties and hiring priests to come say mass for them. Because once that happens, it is a very small step to setting oneself up as the arbiter of what is right and wrong liturgically and from there it is just another small step to setting oneself up as the judge of right and wrong in faith and morals. There's a reason the Catholic Church doesn't operate that way.
A perfect example: The posters that oppose the reforms of Pope Pius XII and think that it's perfectly "OK" for them to ignore the decrees of the Church and arbitrarily "reform the reform" themselves. Ironically these same people are quick to accuse faithful that attend the Indult of being superficially attracted to "smells and bells". When asked why he did not reform the court rituals himself when he opposed the modern reforms of them, Confucius replied that it was not his place to do return to the ancient rituals of his own accord, but that it was the place of the Son of Heaven to reform them himself.
The exact same applies here. Apparently, the dignity and authority of the priest (who, contrary to what many say, is
not "just a man") is just as lost on traditionalists as it is on modernists. The whole order of hierarchy is messed up from top to bottom. When asked what government was, Confucius replied: The ruler is a ruler, the minister a minister, the father a father, the son a son. How can we have any order if in the modern hierarchy the bishops are not "bishop-ing", the priests are not "priest-ing" and the laypeople are not "laypeople-ing"? But taking it further, how can a layman even judge that his priest is not "priest-ing"? Unless the priest decides to show up to Mass in a clown suit, squirt people with holy water from a water gun, and invite a female rabbi to give the sermon, what is the criteria upon which you deem your priest to be a modernist? Just because he doesn't mention modernism from the pulpit on a few occasions when you randomly pop in the church, does that mean you can group him with these other "wimps" (as a certain priest has called his fellow priests) and refuse to receive the sacraments from him?
If the Resistance criticizes the rest of the Society for being too phlegmatic, I think it's fair to criticize the Resistance, or at least a few prominent characters involved in it (among the laity, if not the priests and bishop) for being too hot-headed and hasty. The dust has yet to clear and distinct sides have not been drawn as of yet, but characters such as this "Pablo" (of whom I was wary from the very beginning) make me afraid to get anywhere near this "Resistance" with a ten-foot pole.
"Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam."
Topic: To Pablo (Read 23111 times)