Oh, but the Pontiff was doing something very harmful to the Church by disallowing the consecrations. Without traditional bishops to ordain seminarians, where were traditional priests supposed to come from? And without them, the traditional Mass would die. Do you think the Archbishop didn't know this--or didn't realize that the knives were out to destroy Tradition within the Catholic Church?
The Archbishop was old, in his eighties. He was the only bulwark against the complete destruction of the old Mass. His was the only seminary at that time training traditional seminarians. His was the only one using the old methods, applying the old ascetical disciplines and prescribing classical theological studies. None of this would have survived had he obeyed. And had he obeyed the living memory of the Catholic Church that had existed for the prior two thousand years would have been lost. It would have expired along with himself. So the stakes were enormous.
Had the Archbishop lived in another age, maybe you would have been right. But he saw devastation all around him. He saw the Church lurching from crisis to crisis. He saw heresy and corruptions abound. He saw new theologies challenging even the deposit of faith directly. So of course he had to make a judgment--and he did so on the State of Necessity canon which provided an exception for disobedience. And he did so with a good conscience, for the purpose of saving the Traditional Mass and Traditional Catholicism--not for reasons of malice to defy the Pope.
As for my other argument--that prelates routinely disobey this pope in matters of far greater importance--I refer to the routine subversion of Catholic dogmas. This is done openly and without any remonstrance on the part of the Pontiff. This in itself has been shocking and unprecedented.
Oh, but the Pontiff was doing something very harmful to the Church by disallowing the consecrations. Without traditional bishops to ordain seminarians, where were traditional priests supposed to come from?My current pastor attended a very liberal seminary in the 1970s.
I live in the Diocese of Trenton, a very liberal diocese (it is common practice in this diocese to stand during the consecration, for example).
My pastor celebrates the Mass of St. Pius V every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation and on many other feasts (Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, etc.) besides.
We have Novenas, First Friday devotions, recitation of the Rosary, Benediction, Holy Hour, Forty Hours' Adoration and other devotions.
My pastor will christen, wed and bury his parishioners according to the Rite of St. Pius V whenever he is asked.
We have a Schola he organized for the promotion of plainchant.
Every sermon he gives is based on the the Scriptures, the Fathers and the insights of the saints to which he has special devotion like St. Francis de Sales and especially St. John Vianney.
The CCD is taught according to the Baltimore Catechism.
All this from a priest who was four years old when the Second Vatican Council was convened.
He has done all this without needing to be ordained by Richard Williamson.
He is a living example that God will provide good priests for his Church under the most adverse conditions - with or without the help of the SSPX.
He was the only bulwark against the complete destruction of the old Mass.
The SSPX needs to believe this. But it is not necessarily true. Abp. Lefebvre did an enormous amount of good work for the Church, work which needs to be recognized and acknowledged by many who unjustly scorn the man.
And he did so with a good conscience, for the purpose of saving the Traditional Mass and Traditional Catholicism--not for reasons of malice to defy the Pope.
I agree. I believe that Abp. Lefebvre acted according to the dictates of his conscience as well.
That isn't the point. The point is that the bishops of the SSPX need to recognize the objective fact that their consecrations were irregular and that whatever the circumstances of their consecrations they need to regularize them according to the canonical norms of the Church.
The SSPX is needed as a leaven within the Church - not marginalized outside the Church as a testament to the ego of the Williamsons of the world.
The Church survived 1500 years without seminaries. There is nothing particularly "traditional" about them.
I agree the only reason we have the indult is the SSPX. This is the Archbishop's great legacy. The forcing of Rome to openly legalize the old Mass.
Lefebvre was offered a traditional Bishop to be consecrated on 8/15/1988. He refused, because he neither trusted nor believed. Were there good reasons? Perhaps. But lets not confuse the issue.