NEO-SSPX WATCH: THE DIALOGUE
P. Xavier Bauvais
"Some may think that a canonical recognition could make the voice of Tradition more resonant, the intentions are sincere, but we have seen that this is an illusion ."
Author: Maubert. Taken from the magazine L'encampado , of the Priorato de Marseille, whose superior is the RP Xavier Bauvais FSSPX . Read on Tradinews . An excerpt is published.
By
"dialogue" is not understood the conversation or the discussion, but an
understanding and an exchange between people whose thinking is
divergent, through doctrinal concessions.
It can be said that the masters in this matter, in the 20th century, were the communists. Despite
the atrocities they committed, with this weapon they succeeded in
seducing a crowd of Christians who, nevertheless, had witnessed their
abuses.
It is amazing to observe that communist methods are almost identical to those used by modernist Rome with respect to traditional communities.
Dialogue between communists and Catholics in China
General principle
In
the first place, the general principle is that everything that emanates
from the communists must be interpreted in the Marxist sense. When they speak of "patriotism", it is in accordance with Marxist principles, for a Marxist purpose, and therefore materialist.
Slide Catholics on the political terrain
To
attract Christians to join their movements and to embark the Church in
the Revolution, they begin by accusing it of being an accomplice of
imperialism. They seek to drag her into the political arena, transforming religion into a political issue. Therefore, the problem is falsified in the base. From
then on, the civil authority claims the right and the duty to control
the politics of the religious group, proceeding to the necessary purges. Every opponent will no longer be a defender of the faith, but a political refractor. From there the government makes faithful Catholics are fought by the progressives; They sow distrust of the former, raise the latter against them. Since the terrain is profane, the question of martyrdom no longer exists, so the will to resist disappears.
Ambiguous formulas
The
seduction of dialogue comes from ambiguous formulas used by communists:
they present themselves as ardent defenders of patriotism. Is not patriotism an imperative of Christianity? To listen to the communists turned into patriots, is not it already a victory for Catholicism?
The proposals presented by the communists always have a possible Catholic interpretation. In addition, they say they want this interpretation. But then, in their own behavior, they use their own sense and principles. They know very well that words do not have the same meaning on both sides. All his policy of seduction and approach is based on this knowledge. The Revolution is first and foremost a praxis; Words are a simple tool.
The concessions
Once the Christians are dragged into the ambush, concessions and commitments begin. In a circle, someone makes an accusation against a bishop who is considered unpatriotic. At first, this confuses Catholics, but they are forced to do the same, having admitted the principle of [false] patriotism. Thus, they act against their conscience; and they quickly fall into moral decay. Communism causes the Church to crumble under the corruption of consciences, from which one does not rise. It is worse than apostasy, it is a repetition of acts against the faith, ideas are completely clouded.
From then on, resistance becomes impossible.
Not everyone opens their eyes at the same time; thus the Catholic bloc is divided and disintegrated, piece by piece.
Conclusion: from the beginning, reject dialogue and prefer martyrdom
Therefore, we must reject the dialogue, which is unfair and with unequal weapons. The smiles of the Marxists are infinitely more dangerous than their weapons. For them, breaking the dialogue is not desirable; It is essential to your goal. What to do? Can we continue the dialogue? No, because communists drag Catholics to their materialist dialectic: what is at stake is faith. To save her, we must accept persecution and martyrdom. For thus, making martyrs, communism prepares its own defeat. "Have courage, I have overcome the world," said the King of Martyrs.
Dialogue between conciliar Rome and the traditionalists
General principle
If we apply all this to our situation, the first principle is that what comes from the modernists must be interpreted in a modernist sense. We have seen it, among other things, in this expression: "Council seen in the light of Tradition". Its
objective is to involve everyone in the revolutionary dynamics of
Vatican II, that is, the evolution of dogmas and, ultimately, ecumenism,
the basis of the "new evangelization" and, ultimately, the unity of
humanity in the diversity of beliefs, each of which is equal and free.
Slide the traditionalists from the doctrinal plane to the disciplinary level
To attract traditionalists to this movement, they begin with accusations: "They are dissidents, separated from Rome." Or, they make tempting proposals: the possibilities of a greater apostolic projection; Finally,
nothing is more effective than gifts: the Motu proprio 2007, the
lifting of excommunication (2009), the jurisdiction of confessions, the
episcopal delegation for our marriages.
The winner is the Holy See, because it appears as a good prince, showing mercy; our refusal to make concessions will seem even more odious. Therefore, psychological pressure is exerted on us to stop fighting. And
these advances publicly suggest that things are improving, when in
reality, the fundamental problem, which is doctrinal, remains intact.
The Catholics of the Tradition are invited to come "as faithful of the Tradition"; they want to incorporate Tradition "as it is" in the Revolution; they must keep their "charisma". Through this game, the light of Tradition is no longer the one that should enlighten every man; It is an opinion among many others.
In this way, the process of ralliement puts first the practical questions and in parenthesis the doctrinal problem. It is at this level that this slip is operated. We certainly do not deny the doctrine, but we insist on regularization. And by dint of talking mainly about this, we end up thinking that we are in an irregularity. Everything is considered from this point of view. Just
as the Communists made religion a political issue, the Roman
authorities made adherence to the Council a matter of obedience. In this way, the motive of martyrdom is eliminated: faith. Any claim against conciliar errors or against ecumenical scandals will be labeled as disobedience or sin against unity. Thus, there are no more martyrs, and little by little the resistance disappears.
The reduction to silence, or the forgetting of the common good of the Church
This shows us that, by the mere fact of canonical recognition, it reduces silence. Monsignor
Lefebvre said it about Dom Gérard: "It is not true that they have not
yielded anything, they have renounced the possibility of opposing Rome,
they can not say anything anymore.
This
point is fundamental, because it shows that, although we are not
required to make any doctrinal statement about Vatican II, we are no
longer criticizing it and, in fact, we are entering the revolutionary
machine that admits everyone with their opinions, but provided that the
opinions of the neighbor are admitted as defensible. Thus, in fact, by remaining silent, the conciliar ideology is admitted as acceptable; therefore, it is an implicit recognition of Vatican II. Then doctrinal questions are quickly relativized, and modern errors are explicitly admitted.
This allows us to give an important precision: the question of the common good. Through our doctrinal combat and our public opposition to the conciliar errors, we defend the common good of the Church. By
remaining silent, we would be admitted to the official Church with
certain advantages, but in doing so, we would place our particular good
above the common good. Such is the liberal trap: to make the absolute [the truth, the Tradition] be relative. Indeed,
at this moment, the truth, Tradition is considered as a good for
certain delayed people (we), therefore a relative good, but in no case a
necessary good for all, an absolute.
On the contrary, our attitude is an attitude of members of the Church. The member is part of a whole; the part is for the whole. What we want is the good of the Church, the common good, that is, that Rome recover its Tradition. Certainly, some may think that by a canonical recognition the voice of Tradition could be made to resonate more; The intentions are sincere, but we have seen that this is an illusion. The goat of Mr. Seguin thought that he would defeat the wolf, but the terrible reality was imposed on him. What counts is the objective reality. We must reflect on this, because the common good here is a matter of eternal salvation.
