Post by Deleted on May 27, 2018 17:32:53 GMT
That is a great pity. What the Church needs right now is not independent priests, but priests who are prepared to fight side-by-side on the same battlefield and not just go off into a corner and do their own thing.
In the days before the betrayal of the SSPX, pre-2012, even the "independent priests" like Fr. Hesse, Fr. Bolduc, Fr. Ringrose, yes even Fr. Roberts too, were not truly independent. They were not formally members of the SSPX but they still worked along side them, they worked with them. They sent their young men to the SSPX's semianries, their faithful went on SSPX retreats, they themselves went on SSPX priests' retreats... A more accurate term would have been "co-workers" or something similar. Priests who were truly independent were the ones like Fr. Oswald Baker who might as well have been the last priest left alive on the earth as far as he was concerned. Independent of literally everyone else. That just doesn't help anyone.
What's more, the not-very-amusing irony is this. Whether Fr. King realises it or not, whether he intends it or not, what his being "independent" means in practice is his conforming to the will of Bishop Williamson that there should be only "loose, independent pockets". No one is expecting him to be "under authority" or "obedience" to Fr. Pfeiffer or any such exaggeration scare-tactic put about by people with an axe to grind. But there has to be a good reason for refusing to have anything at all to do with a fellow priest. With the SSPX it is that they have betrayed and are betraying the Archbishop and Our Lord. Wit the Ecclesia Dei priests it is that, as the Archbishop once said, "they are shaking hands with those who are destroying the Church" (one might say the same about the SSPX today). With Bishop Williamson it's because he has spent the past three or four years propagating errors and evil, deliberately causing confusion and leading souls astray in the most wicked and perverse manner imaginable. What has Fr. Pfeiffer done? What has Fr. Hewko done? What is anyone's justification for being resolutely "independent" from them? Is their teaching really so doctrinally unsound? In which case, why has nobody anywhere ever pointed out anything wrong with it? I don't want to be unfair to anyone, but the only reason I can think of right now for any priest to be entirely "independent" (meaning having nothing ever to do with, which in effect, means something similar to excommunication) from them is fear of the Williamsonite mafia with its hidden threats and undeclared persecutions. That's certainly something quite real.
What the Church needs right now is not "independent priests". She needs priests who will carry on the work of the Archbishop. And the work of the Archbishop was priests organising themselves, working together, getting seminaries going to train a younger generation of priests, and so on. That's the future. That's what we should be supporting.
Archbishop Lefebvre: model against subversion
Providentially, Archbishop Lefebvre knew how to respond to subversion within the Church thanks to personal assets:
- a tried virtue which sheltered him from a careerist spirit
- a solid spirit of faith which protected him from the “songs of the mermaids” of modernism
- a clear, simple, strong preaching which marked minds and avoided confusion or the misappropriation of his words
- a long experience with the Roman Curia which immunized him against the snares of Vatican diplomacy
- a tenacity and a Christian optimism which kept him from all defeatism or irenicism*
- a practical sense which allowed him to effectively fight against disorder
These effective measures were the adequate response to subversion:
- against the destruction of the clerical elite, the solid formation of true priests and the foundation of schools and colleges
- against the fragmentation of individuals (priests and faithful), the creation of the Society and the establishment of priories and associations grouping together isolated forces
Let us finally add that at the height of this crisis of authority that the Church experienced, his personal sanctity as well as his competence made him – against his will - the providential leader capable of uniting Catholic resistance, and bringing to this order, a proud fortification erected against subversion.