[Polycarp]

When Peter Vere praises Huel's tremendous intellect, he praising a mastermind of dialectical combat against the Church. When he writes articles attacking traditionalists, he's forwarding the dialectical process of destruction put in place at Vatican II.

Maybe Vere's not aware of this, maybe he's only a "useful idiot."

In charity, I think you must apply the benefit of the doubt, and assume that what Pete says is what he believes to be the Truth, not part of some sinister dialectical combat.

And Pete is certainly not an idiot. Like myself, he may just be (relatively) young and naive. Furthermore, in their concern to distance themselves from the real errors of schismatic traditionalism (there are no errors in faithful Catholic traditionalism, really) folks like Vere and Hand can and do error honestly. They have seen the true dangers of schism and their zeal in removing themselves from those errors may lead them into other errors, no less dangerous.

For that matter, even Huel's true motives are unknown, though the damage he has done may be objectively quantified.

Ascribing motives is the number one offense on both sides of the conservative versus traditionalist divide.

[Maximilian]

>>In charity, I think you must apply the benefit of the doubt, and assume that what Pete says is what he believes to be the Truth, not part of some sinister dialectical combat.

Giving Vere the benefit of the doubt is exactly what I did. It is an objective fact that Vere has been used in a "sinister dialectical combat." Huels has said so. I am willing to assume the Vere was unaware of this.

I thought Freepers would be familiar with the term "useful idiot." It means the "fellow travellers" in the 1930's who promoted the Communist cause without ever realizing it. They were unwitting tools in the dialectical process.

Another example would be the journalists who promoted the "nuclear freeze" in the early 1980's. The majority were unaware that they were parroting communist propaganda.

This doesn't mean that they were stupid, except in a metaphysical sense. The "useful idiots" of the 1930s and 1980s and all the decades in between were primarily people of very high IQs. But they were blind to the larger implications of their beliefs and actions.

There was no question of ascribing motives even to Huels. He SAID that he was forwarding the dialectical process initiated at Vatican II. He SAID that they used deceptive language during the council and then "discredited and excommunicated" their conservative opponents. He told us that they did all these things to achieve their objective. One needn't gild the lilly by tacking on additional motives beyond what he has already admitted.

[ultima ratio]

You can't resist the potshots. If by the "real errors of schismatic traditionalists" you are referring to Lefebvre and his followers, show me where the errors are. They saw what was happening very clearly, they understood it was an attempt to institute a new protestantized religion which would do immeasurable harm to the Church, and they resisted its imposition. How were they wrong? They were persecuted for their pains by a pope who saw no further than his nose. Lefebvre correctly refused to obey an improper command which would have damaged the Church irreparably. Thanks to his courage and foresight, tradition is now intact and spreading throughout the world even as the Novus Ordo Church collapses in its own multiple corruptions.

[Theosis]

"And Pete is certainly not an idiot. Like myself, he may just be (relatively) young and naive."

I would suspect the answer is neither. As a friend of his since his SSPX days, I often wondered about his relationship with Huels. From our past conversations, I drew two conclusions:

1) There is a legitimate close friendship between Vere and Huels, which supercedes any ideological differences between the two.

2) There is also a strategic political alliance that extends beyond Vere to include most canonists of a traditionalist persuasion. Basically, Huels has always extended his broad view of the liturgy to include traditionalists as well.

Recall that after Lefebvre went into schism, Huels was the first reputable canonist to call for a broad application of the Ecclesia Dei indult. Most canonists, including Fr. Woestman who was the leading conservative at the time, maintained that the former rigid requirement still applied to the indult.

Huels also was one of the few reputable canonists to defend EWTN's celebration of the Mass facing the altar when their local ordinary tried to coerce them into celebrating the Mass pro populum.

There are numerous other examples within the canon law world where Huels has lent his credibility to traditionalist canonists who would otherwise simply be ignored by their liberal and conservative counterparts.
The end result is that Huels maintains a support base on the right, while traditionalists maintain a credible voice in canonical debate.

This could be why most traditionalist canonists, and not just Vere, while not condoning Huels' actions are rallying behind him right now. On the other hand, this could be the break needed by canonical conservatives in order to galvanize the right and reimpose liturgical uniformity.