ok new devlopments, new questions…
first of all, thanks for the links and info, but let me throw this info into the mix…
archbishop lefebvre illegally ordained 4 bishops, and at least one of them seems more than a little unsavoury to me.
recently i came across a tape of a talk he gave at an australian conference just a few years back, following september 11. the talk he gave is disturbing to say the least. not only does he seem to have a great deal of sympathy for hitler and the nazis but he even blames the jews and freemasons for the spanish-american war, world war 1, pearl harbor, the assassination of kennedy, the oklahoma bombing, the war in serbia, both gulf wars, the war in afghanistan and september 11. i’ve probably forgotten a couple - basically, name a significant historical event and he’ll say the jews or masons did it. in all cases he claims there was a media cover-up or a false version of events that hid the truth of diabolical and mutinous plots by jews, masons and an invisible but all-encompassing “world-government” (presumably a mixture of jews and masons when no more specific finger-pointing will do) .
now a lot of us have a healthy distrust of the media, fine, but his idea of logic goes something like this: 1. The media says X happened. 2. it seems possible that X didn’t happen. 3. Therefore, the jews did it.
i have heard whispers from time to time about a “neo-nazi” element among traditional catholics, and i’ve just dismissed it as slanderous rubbish, but i have no doubt whatsoever that this bishop does not have a healthy worldview to say the least, and i now can’t help recalling a number of odd remarks i’ve heard from the members of the community in which i’m working, which seem to support the notion that there is indeed a jew-hating, racial-purity-obsessed element in the sspx movement. i wouldn’t worry about that so much if it wasn’t for the fact that one of the 4 bishops chosen by archbishop lefebvre is openly encouraging this element. it makes me wonder if it was integral from the beginning.
in bringing this up i’m in no way intending to tar everyone with the same brush. what bothers me most is that this element may have always been there from the beginning (due to some perverse interpretation of “no salvation outside the church” and a number of old encyclicals etc), and also that nobody in the audience of this bishop’s talk even dared question his bizarre and unscholarly interpretations of history nor his astonishingly bizarre conclusions. in fact, i couldn’t help imagining all the poor people in the audience reverently taking notes as their exalted cleric acted as an oracle of God’s own truth.
THIS worries me most of all. this is when doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues tend to fade into the background and the moral implications of sincere christians blindly accepting the perverse teachings of charismatic leaders acting outside of rome’s authority come into the foreground. there were times when he warned that anyone who believed the oficial versions of history - as opposed to his own - were being led down to hell. THIS is the true danger of schism, and always has been. replace church authority with the private judgement of fallen men, and many innocent people will suffer, especially when they find out that they have been misled.
as far as a reconciliation between the society and rome, i believe that bishop fellay and other sincere people within the society desire this, but this other bishop grandly proclaimed that should such a thing happen, there would be another break within the society itself, and certain priests would lead the “faithful remnant” away from rome again.
so it seems that, at best, there is a minority of very fanatical and divisive people within the society, and, at worst, the whole movement is poisonous from the roots up, or should i say the top down. would archbishop lefebvre have tolerated the things his own appointed bishop was teaching the “flock”? let’s hope not.