Sunday, 27 March 2016

The party line...


The silence, censorship and obdurate, bone-headed conviction with which my, utterly correct, view of Marcel Lefebvre has been treated reminds me of the end of one of the late Sir Christopher Lee's best films, The Wicker Man. In a howling wilderness, beset by silent, deluded foes with vacant expressions, the sergeant implored them, tried to explain with reason the shallowness of their religion, and he was burnt at the stake anyway. I daresay if the unholy Inquisition still existed that would be my fate too, for loving truth rather than party lines.

7 comments:

  1. I have found that many who should know better still think highly of the archbishop. There are also those who follow his name by cries of “Santo Subito”, or even call him “Saint Marcel”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why? From the Roman perspective, he was an unrepentant schismatic and defiantly consecrated four bishops with the openly Sedevacantist De Castro Mayer. How are these things praiseworthy? And then from the perspective of somebody like me he was a tyrannical, indecisive, unjust sycophant. "Saint Marcel?" That's a laugh.

      Delete
    2. He is described as a modern-day Athanasius Contra Mundum, the one who “protected the Tridentine Mass” (sic). He “did what he had to do”, Rome was never really against him, …

      The confusingly-named St. Marcel Initiative of Bishop Williamson is probably what made most people think it was okay to consider him a saint, though I have seen it being used long before.

      Delete
  2. To consider Lebevre a saint only demonstrates that those who fervently believe in Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction can believe anything, no matter how outrageous or contrary to scripture and tradition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I have no real feelings one way or the other about either the Archbishop or his Society, I support what Prior Martin has stated here. I have always found conversations with members of the Society to border on the brain-dead. They chastise the New Rite, as do I, but then still believe in the Pope's personal infallibility, even though he expresses the faith through a theologically defective liturgy (which makes the Anglican BCP look like a pure and holy, old Catholic expression of the faith in comparison); and believe that the only mark of Catholicity is to be in complete submission to the Pope. They are forced by their papal convictions to admit to the validity of the New Rite, but then cannot seem to explain why they are in schism, if the New Rite, the Papal rite, is valid, there is no excuse, other than personalities, for their schismatic stance.

      Of course, in their defense, conservative New Riters are even more bizarre, they have demoted the fullness of catholicity to simply going all goo-goo over the rock-star status of the Pope.

      Delete
    2. Dale, once I was reading a traditional Catholic internet forum where they were calling Francis a heretic, disaster, disgrace, blasphemer,apostate, etc. Finally someone interjected that maybe it was time to reevaluate papal infallibility. These same trads who ripped Francis apart proceeded to call this guy a heretic, blasphemer, etc for even questioning papal infallibility. For members of a faith that prides itself on reason and logic, trads have neither.

      Anthony

      Delete
    3. Anthony,

      This has been my experience as well. Truly mind boggling.

      Delete