NEO-SSPX WATCH: Self defeating strategy
When I was looking
through the Remnant newspaper com-box (and came across the Andrew
Senior post concerning Fr Robinson/Wenger etc.) the thing that
took me back more than anything was the fear amongst the SSPX laity
in speaking out against the changes in the Society. Historically
people who supported the SSPX had to be either brave, extremely
pious, mad or a combination of a couple of the above.
It seems that these
days, along with certainly some of the new priests, we have lambs in the SSPX congregations,
rather than lions. Of course it goes without saying that many of the
more headstrong were prepared to leave and support the Resistance but
I don’t think that explains everything.
In France not only
do those opposing the rallliement of the SSPX have the option of the Avrille
Dominicans but other religious houses who, to whatever degree, oppose
a deal. But in many countries that is not an option. If one refuses
to support the Conciliar Church then the SSPX is their only option.
Of course, this put the SSPX in a position open to abuse. If one
‘causes trouble’ not only could one and one’s children be
ostracised but, if the priest is of ill will, expulsion from
the chapel. I do not doubt that this fear is one of the things
keeping many laity quiet. Those with children in SSPX schools, are
especially prone to the potential of being targetted.
Then we have the
ultimate threat, that if a substantial number of people resist change
then the SSPX could ‘pull out’ of a Mass centre leaving the laity
as ‘orphans’.
I heard about this late
last year and the situation is quite interesting on a number of
levels. Firstly, the situation had nothing to do with the resistance
as such. I gather from the blog that the operator would be happy
enough with an SSPX/Rome accord. However, there are a couple of things
which need highlighting. Firstly, once again the centralizing of Mass
centres where a priest could not be expected to travel two hours
for 40-50 people but 40-50 people should be expected to travel two hours to the next closest
Mass centre! This is something that Fr Pfeiffer rightly pointed out
in the early days of the resistance, that saying three Masses on a
Sunday is now considered too much for a Society priest nowadays. (Tell that to Bp Zendejas
whose Sundays seem to resemble the travels of Phileas Fog!).
There is also some
financial stuff which needs answering, but the most interesting point
is what the SSPX priest said before he left. Now the reason why the SSPX
is able to hold power over its laity is simple. “You have nowhere
else to go, so pray and obey”. However, the trajectory in the Society is now one of
sympathy with the varying Ecclesia Dei groupings. One has only to
read some of the SSPX national sites, particularly Germany, to
witness this. But this is a self defeating strategy. See here from
the above Okie Traditionalist site
For a while now I
have wondered for how long the SSPX could continue to impress upon
its laity the need to avoid the Ecclesia Dei groupings. The
difference between the two now are so minimal they are barely
noticeable. (The SSPX now even have a more modern Easter liturgy!)
The major difference has always been the restrictions placed on
Ecclesia Dei groupings to tell the whole truth unhindered. Is that
what SSPX priests of good will are able to do now? Really? I know
of a number who have been moved because they have not tailored their
sermons enough for the new regime.
The more the SSPX
turn their back on their past, the more their laity will look
enviously at what the local Christ the King Institute or FSSP parish
has going for them.
SOURCE
