The position of Fr. Michael Mary, SMHR and that of Ab. Lefebvre

[Zakhur]

Before this thread gets any further, let's get the following straight.  I love the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, though I know none of them personally.  I do so because they are sons also of St. Alphonsus Liguori (whom I dearly love) and they seek to preserve his authentic charism.

One more thing.  I am using Fr. Michael Mary's CURRENT overall opinion about Archbishop Lefebvre's actions as a SPRINGBOARD for this thread's discussion.  IF ANYONE SPEAKS ILL OF FR. MICHAEL OR HIS ORDER ON THIS THREAD I ASK YOU TO DELETE YOUR POST.  PLEASE.  I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

If you care to read one of his statements concerning the crisis and the SSPX you can here:

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-10-10T12%3A50%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=7

Now, is he right, or wrong?  I'm asking for my own sake, NOT HIS.  UNDERSTAND THAT.  How does one assert the legitimacy of Archbishop Lefebvre's actions and explain a conclusion like Fr. Michael Mary's?  I haven't read enough, that's why I'm asking all of you.

[Oldavid]

I really can't understand what you're on about.

[glgas]

They reconciled with the Holy See and in Summer of 2008 get the canonically  good status

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/07/canonical-good-standing.html

[Oldavid]

Yeah,
I know about that.
Still... nothing makes sense to me.

[devotedknuckles]

Indeed what exactly is the op asking?
Sip

[BrevisVir55]

I am familiar with the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. I admire them. I am not certain what you are asking but I was under the impression that they were not hostile toward the SSPX, they have a link to the SSPX on their site.

pax

[Gerard]

From what I can gather,  Fr. Michael Mary views the situation in the Church regarding the Crisis that exploded after the Council as improved to the point where resisting the novelties of the day is less important than a return to traditional "normalcy." 

It looks like he puts his emphasis on Shepherds and Gardeners working in the fields vs. fighting the invading hordes being repelled by warrior monks and Crusading Knights. 

I personally think he's only half right.  The fields must be tended to, but the wolves are not gone even if they have ceded some ground.  The SSPX is the group that is gaining that ground and until the doctrinal discussions clarify what is the wrong view of Vatican II, the whole kit and kaboodle is at risk again. 

Lessons have to be learned from the Crisis.   A return to pre-conciliar attitudes, thinking and formalities is not sufficient since it wasn't sufficient to repel the "Spirit of Vatican II" (whether it's a perversion or legitimate reading of the texts of Vatican II) 

You can't gloss over what happened and "Let bygones be bygones" with JPII.   

I'm still suspicious of BXVI to some degree.  He's clear on some things but gives mixed signals when makes concessions to the modern novelties.   If he would flat out condemn some things in classic papal language, that I would understand as clear.

[Zakhur]

Gerard,

All of that is precisely the way I think about it.  A position like Fr. Michael Mary's is simply not enough to excise the modern cancer from the Body.  It is almost like taking a pain killer perhaps.  That's why I have not been able to agree with a position like his.  It doesn't make intuitive sense.

[INPEFESS]

I'm still suspicious of BXVI to some degree.  He's clear on some things but gives mixed signals when makes concessions to the modern novelties.   If he would flat out condemn some things in classic papal language, that I would understand as clear.

Indeed.

[Gerard]

Gerard,

All of that is precisely the way I think about it.  A position like Fr. Michael Mary's is simply not enough to excise the modern cancer from the Body.  It is almost like taking a pain killer perhaps.  That's why I have not been able to agree with a position like his.  It doesn't make intuitive sense.

I got the impression that he's looking at things from a legalistic point of view.  As if Summorum Pontificum made the bishops lay down their arms and surrender to tradition.   All they've done is go underground in their persecution of Tradition.   

I think Fr. Michael Mary might view things differently if he's taken out of the monastery, put in a diocesan rectory, forced to live with modernists, rationalists and priests not faithful to their vows of celibacy,  when he's obliged to say the Novus Ordo, and use all the new rites for the Sacraments, when he's overridden by the bishop who will allow pop songs at funerals, when he's chastised for giving sermons (homilies) that are "pastorally insensitive" or "too harsh" when he's shuttled from parish to parish, when servers are "mysteriously" unavailable for serving the TLM,  he might view the crisis differently .  Oh and I forgot, when he's not used to Cafeteria and Conservative Catholics who will rail against his orthodoxy or dismiss him as irrelevant to what they do in "their" Church. 

[GodFirst]

Fr. Michael et all are where they are and not where they would be scandalized or forced into doing anything. They as a religious society went into the mess the Church is in closer to Rome and Her Cardinals. There situation was not ours, and I believe there was a purpose why they did what they did. God's mysterious Will is behind it. Let us not dare to claim that we know everything about this crisis and exactly what everyone is to do. If anyone here says that he knows for absolute certainty, he either has pride or a private revelation from God. We so need humility as the foundation of our Christian life. I'm not saying to run to the local Parish, but we all first ought to bridle our tongues and pray for God's light. There some things we know sure (like what goes on in each of our own localities), and many more things we don't (like what is going in Rome, on Papa Stronsay, and in the so many places). Let us for God and for our own sakes shut our clap-traps about things we know little or nothing.

[ImpyTerwilliger]

Now, is he right, or wrong?

One very important word is missing from Fr. Michael Mary's statement:  "bishops."

He writes as though the Holy Father were the only member of the hierarchy.  It's very strange.  There is in fact a swamp full of Modernist and recalcitrant bishops and cardinals, even in the Curia itself, who do whatever they can to hinder Tradition.  He does not explain why SSPX should be subject to them, when the Holy Father cannot or will not control them.

And so, it's easy to make a statement like this from an island off the coast of Scotland.  SSPX has engaged the battle for Tradition.  That's the difference.

Ergo, the good Father is wrong.