Last week, I began sharing excerpts from Chiron’s remarkable history of traditionalism. Let’s continue. Any of my commentary is in italics; the rest of the text is from Chiron, with page numbers in parentheses.
Thanks Dr K, another thoroughly informative post. Our Lord, it seems to me, teaches us mainly in two ways: parables and actions.
You could write a hundred parables on the stupidity, arrogance, and violence of the modernist project perpetrated by Church officials against the faith to date, you would be hard pushed to write one against the defenders of Tradition, without resorting to contradiction and hard heartedness.
In actions, it seems defenders of the faith act only in last resorts, whilst the modernists continually innovate novelties and foist them upon the faithful.
I've reached the point in all of this, where I'm simply unwilling to make excuses for rejecting the modernist Church and the Novus Ordo. I'm just not going to remove my brain and pretend that the demolition team holding high office, have legitimate authority, when they promulgate heresy.
Not once did Our Lord ask us to contort our intellect and blind ourselves to the obvious.
Anyone still clinging to the revolution in this age of full availability of historical sources, where the evidence to use our reason is available like it never has been, is truly confirming themselves as a revolutionary.
A bit of a digression but as usual, Revolutionaries co-opt the narrative by projecting culpability, moving the goalposts of reason and demanding compliance.
The communion of prelates ought to be confirmed - if at all - by signing the Oath Against Modernism, not by pledging allegiance to a Council, the most dominant feature of which is ambiguity.
Obviously well studied and documented. The externals are especially described in accordance with what's on paper. What was on ground might have even been more wild. A reader of history loses the benefit of experiential knowledge by first hand witnesses, but what is documented is enough to cause us to imagine what it must have been like in the chaos after the council.
What we lack, to complete the picture, is a clear idea of why the Spirit of Vatican II folks really oppose tradition, why it threatens them and their agenda. The recent remarks of Fr. Fliss in Wisconsin reveal a casual prejudice, born I suspect of the seminary insanity of past decades, that meeds closer scrutiny. But I suspect there’s a deeper agenda, too, among some of the most influential in the church, who fan the flames of Flissian falderol.
Pete, this history deserves to be remembered. It documents courage, suffering, and fidelity to tradition. But history cannot substitute for ecclesiology. The decisive question is not whether Archbisop Lefebvre believed necessity required him to act, nor whether many Catholics were grateful that he did. The decisive question remains the same today as it was in 1975: By what publicly demonstrable juridical act does a bishop receive apostolic mission and ordinary jurisdiction apart from the Roman Pontiff? Until that question is answered, the constitutional problem remains exactly where it began.
Please post your Curriculum Vitae so we can admire the ease with which you have acquired titles. Even better, please cite your published books and scholarly articles to establish your credibility in being dismissive of another man’s learned opinions and accomplishments.
If by “Quito” you mean Lefebvre’s conferences explaining the necessity of his actions, they may explain why he believed he should act. They do not identify the ecclesiastical act by which apostolic mission or ordinary jurisdiction was conferred. That’s the question I’m asking.
Thanks Dr K, another thoroughly informative post. Our Lord, it seems to me, teaches us mainly in two ways: parables and actions.
You could write a hundred parables on the stupidity, arrogance, and violence of the modernist project perpetrated by Church officials against the faith to date, you would be hard pushed to write one against the defenders of Tradition, without resorting to contradiction and hard heartedness.
In actions, it seems defenders of the faith act only in last resorts, whilst the modernists continually innovate novelties and foist them upon the faithful.
I've reached the point in all of this, where I'm simply unwilling to make excuses for rejecting the modernist Church and the Novus Ordo. I'm just not going to remove my brain and pretend that the demolition team holding high office, have legitimate authority, when they promulgate heresy.
Not once did Our Lord ask us to contort our intellect and blind ourselves to the obvious.
Anyone still clinging to the revolution in this age of full availability of historical sources, where the evidence to use our reason is available like it never has been, is truly confirming themselves as a revolutionary.
A bit of a digression but as usual, Revolutionaries co-opt the narrative by projecting culpability, moving the goalposts of reason and demanding compliance.
The communion of prelates ought to be confirmed - if at all - by signing the Oath Against Modernism, not by pledging allegiance to a Council, the most dominant feature of which is ambiguity.
Obviously well studied and documented. The externals are especially described in accordance with what's on paper. What was on ground might have even been more wild. A reader of history loses the benefit of experiential knowledge by first hand witnesses, but what is documented is enough to cause us to imagine what it must have been like in the chaos after the council.
What we lack, to complete the picture, is a clear idea of why the Spirit of Vatican II folks really oppose tradition, why it threatens them and their agenda. The recent remarks of Fr. Fliss in Wisconsin reveal a casual prejudice, born I suspect of the seminary insanity of past decades, that meeds closer scrutiny. But I suspect there’s a deeper agenda, too, among some of the most influential in the church, who fan the flames of Flissian falderol.
We have what you are describing in this book, which just came out:
https://osjustipress.com/products/liberal-revolution-bianchi
Thank you, order to come soon!
Pete, this history deserves to be remembered. It documents courage, suffering, and fidelity to tradition. But history cannot substitute for ecclesiology. The decisive question is not whether Archbisop Lefebvre believed necessity required him to act, nor whether many Catholics were grateful that he did. The decisive question remains the same today as it was in 1975: By what publicly demonstrable juridical act does a bishop receive apostolic mission and ordinary jurisdiction apart from the Roman Pontiff? Until that question is answered, the constitutional problem remains exactly where it began.
Lou, referring to the good doctor as “Pete” is boorish.
Titles are easy. Demonstrating apostolic mission is the difficult part.
Please post your Curriculum Vitae so we can admire the ease with which you have acquired titles. Even better, please cite your published books and scholarly articles to establish your credibility in being dismissive of another man’s learned opinions and accomplishments.
When the résumé arrives before the argument, the argument usually isn’t coming.
The point of my reply concerned boorish behavior. Nothing else. I cede now to your expertise in that matter and will post no more.
It seems ‘boorish’ has become the emergency exit when the argument catches fire.
For me, Quito is pretty decisive.
Quito explains a rationale. It doesn’t establish a mission.
If by “Quito” you mean Lefebvre’s conferences explaining the necessity of his actions, they may explain why he believed he should act. They do not identify the ecclesiastical act by which apostolic mission or ordinary jurisdiction was conferred. That’s the question I’m asking.