–And now, after the tremendous uproar you have stirred up with this business of the philo-Lefebvrists, what do we do?
–Ad primum: I did not stir up the uproar; they did, for I wrote with order and peace, with facts and arguments, and without naming or insulting anyone. Ad secundum: it is fitting to think and write calmly, and that now requires waiting a few days or weeks for the storm to pass.
This present article, then, comes to be a reflective rest, a pause. Let us relax a little, in the best sense of the word.
In two articles I have described, without naming particular persons or groups, a Catholicism more or less bound up with Archbishop Lefebvre, which suffers from grave deviations on some important questions. And some, identifying themselves with the description, have felt offended, and have protested in various internet media with great energy and aggressiveness, publishing an avalanche of arguments and documents against my articles.
They feel deeply hurt. And this is perfectly understandable. The philo-Lefebvrists are used to being attacked by the progressive-modernists, in a word, by the heretics; but not by traditional Catholics like me. They are already accustomed to the attacks of the progressaurs; but they are left completely disconcerted and perplexed when they suddenly receive the challenge of one who, like me, describes their errors exactly, after having written on this very blog more than a hundred articles denouncing the abuses and infidelities that frequently occur in the Churches of the de-Christianized West, and in which I criticize Marciano Vidal, Anthony de Mello, Olegario, Borobio, Flecha, Schillebeeckx, Haight, Sobrino, Rahner, Küng, Pagola, etc.; and in which, still more, I reject the errors of the Lutherans, of the Quietists and, what is the last straw, of the whole pious, apparently correct court of Semipelagians, who today are perhaps the majority among good Catholics. One may look through the Index of Reforma o apostasía to verify that I am telling the truth.
The opponents of my articles seem not to understand that being traditional is one thing and being a Lefebvrist or philo-Lefebvrist is another. We Catholics, in order to be Catholic, must all be traditional, just as we must at the same time be biblical and faithful to the apostolic magisterium of all the Councils and of the Pope. “Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others” (Vatican II, DV 10). That is why we in no way criticize the Lefebvrists or philo-Lefebvrists for their love of Catholic Tradition, but because, acting and thinking against it, –they accept the schismatic episcopal ordinations, carried out against the Law of the Church and the express will of the Pope, –they maintain for several decades, and still today, “reservations about obedience to [the Pope’s] doctrinal authority and to that of the Council” (Benedict XVI, 10-III-2009), –and they resist the Catholic Liturgy in its present ordinary form, which is the one renewed in 1970 by Paul VI, as if it were irreconcilable with the ancient liturgy.
We understand the sufferings of Archbishop Lefebvre and of his followers in the face of the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical infidelities that have occurred in the Church, and we share in the same sorrow. This is the theme of the present blog, Reforma o apostasía. But we do not accept those aspects of Lefebvrism which, as Benedict XVI says in the letter cited, need “repentance and the return to unity. Unfortunately, twenty years after the ordination [the cause of the excommunications recently lifted] this goal has not yet been reached.”
There have been many favorable comments on Philo-Lefebvrists -I and -II, and I have been especially gladdened by those coming from my closest colleagues.
–Juanjo Romero: “From the comments one can already see that it was a very necessary ‘post.’ I endorse it from top to bottom. Thank you very much. I take the liberty of publishing it on conoZe.com.” –Bruno Moreno: “A very good article, which I endorse from beginning to end.” –Eleuterio Fernández: “Yours seems to me a more than important explanation regarding the matter of the so-called ‘philo-Lefebvrists,’ one that ought to silence many voices.” –Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante: “As director of InfoCatólica I make this post by Fr. Iraburu my own. A text like this was very, very much needed.” –Guillermo Juan Morado: “Many thanks for this article, so clear and courageous. The example of the saints, to which you allude, is a ‘trial by fire.’” –Miguel Vinuesa: “The points made here no longer belong to mere opinion. They are facts.” –Daniel Iglesias: “Many thanks, Fr. Iraburu. Excellent article.” –José Miguel Arráiz: “Another classic that I will take, with your permission, Father, to enrich ApologeticaCatolica.org.” –Nelson Medina: “Illuminating. Useful. An obligatory reference whenever these topics are discussed.” –Ricardo de Argentina, whom I cite as a worthy representative of the numerous commenter friends of InfoCatólica: “This post of yours, monumental in my poor judgment, is going to do a great deal in favor of the full reintegration of the Fraternity into the bosom of the Church.” I will not tell you how much my poor ego has swelled with these and other praises, since you can well imagine it.
But there are also many who in their comments have fiercely combated these articles on philo-Lefebvrism and their author. And also, for the same price, some have laid into InfoCatólica very harshly. I will begin by citing some of the comments to the articles Philo-Lefebvrists-I (138) and –II (150), which were each open for about three days. I gather some of the more significant phrases.
–Cipitria: “You are firing at windmills, taking refuge in adversaries that do not exist, in order to argue lazily… Disappointing infoCatolica, and very clever at dividing the Church. That is very serious.”
–In diebus illis: “Give us solutions, because this is collapsing; you keep your own clothes dry and the rest of us have to struggle against the fruits of the modernism implanted and consented to from the head of the Roman Church.” “You… would try to justify that one can be a traditionalist while admitting a bastard Mass. Why do you not make a comparative examination of the new Protestant happening with the true Catholic Mass?” A bastard Mass and the true Catholic Mass…
–Lucas: “You still have not clarified what the motive is that has led you to publish your series on the philo-Lefebvrists, nor defined what a philo-Lefebvrist is. The Holy See has spent years in a process of rapprochement with the four Bishops of the FSSPX, and you go and publish this article?”.
–Lautaro: “Fr. Iraburu: I have followed you for years; I have handed out your works among many people, for the good that you were doing… Allow me to tell you that I consider you a hypocrite and a coward. I will tear up all your works and replace them with those of some person who does not so resemble the Pharisees of the times of Our Lord… I am told that you have done all this as a well-paid ‘service,’ precisely because of who you are, and that it has proceeded more from your pride than from your understanding.”
–Fernando: “I wonder what Fr. Iraburu is after with this frontal, untimely and iniquitous attack against the Fraternity… Did he owe some favor that he had to repay?”
–Longinus, Lefebvrist: “The latest events in the Church fully justify the actions of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre; ergo the beatification of John Paul II, the Assisi gathering… I pray that full communion may NOT be reached, if the result is going to be the demolition or emasculation of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which has already happened repeatedly with other Traditional institutes.”
–Piel de Toro, in reference to a text in which I had cited the “sacred Second Vatican Council,” comments: “Don José María, I will just tell you that I nearly fainted reading that bit about the ‘sacred’ Vat. II. ‘Sacred’? Please, can you explain to us that bit about ‘Sacred’?!!!!!!!”
–a catholic priest: “It is evident, the facts and many texts prove it, that the popes since John XXIII are imbued with a liberal, progressive spirit. Since John XXIII, Freemasonry has the popes it was waiting for. Not only the popes, but also a good part of the hierarchy. The latest and coming acts of Benedict XVI prove it amply (the book ‘Light of the World’ with a dubious position on the condom, the announcement of the coming beatification of JP II, the most scandalous pope in the history of the Church, and the announcement of the coming Assisi gathering, a supreme insult to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only savior). Fr. Iraburu agrees that there are progressive modernists inside the Church. But through a voluntary blindness he refuses to consider that the pope too can be a modernist.”
I invite you to explore also those other internet sites that have combated my articles on philo-Lefebvrism. Their articles, and some of the comments that reinforce them, can help you to know better, first-hand, the real reality—not feigned, not invented—of the Lefebvrist and philo-Lefebvrist world, as well as the multiform variety of its modalities. While I rest and pray, reflect and calmly prepare my Philo-Lefebvrists-IV, you may, if the subject interests you, look in on the places I now proceed to point out to you.
–Don Ángel David Martín Rubio publishes on his blog at Religión en libertad two articles by a certain Petrus Hispanus, an anonymous author very close to him, it seems: Philo-Lefebvrists. A reply to D. José María Iraburu and The splendid isolation of D. José Mª Iraburu. I do not comment on them, because they have very poor argumentation. It is worthwhile, on the other hand, to highlight the image that illustrates the second article, and which I have reproduced in this one of mine: Paul VI, complaining that “the smoke of Satan is entering the Church,” is the one who is really fostering it by having promulgated the postconciliar liturgical Novus Ordo , “the bastard Mass” that the commenter already cited spoke of.
I do not quite understand in what sense Don Ángel David Martín Rubio alludes to the splendid isolation of D. José Mª Iraburu. On the one hand, there are many who have supported my articles; and on the other hand, much more important, thank God, I am in full communion with some 4,000 Catholic Bishops united to the Pope, and I have many friends. How does Don Ángel David explain my isolation?… This reminds me of an English radio announcer who, forty years ago, announced on the radio: “In the English Channel a great bank of fog is keeping the European continent isolated.”
–In diebus illis reproduces those two articles, indicating their source, and changing their title and images: Adversus Iraburu: or how the flag is struck and Adversus Iraburu II: or how the she-donkey returns to the wheat. It introduces them by saying that I am like “a reed shaken with the wind” (Lk 7:24), that I attack the “man who saved doctrine, Tradition, the Catholic priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice against the ruin that was preying on the rest of the Church. With the complicity of great cardinals and great bishops and theologians who kept silent and swallowed the toad. These accomplices—middle-of-the-road, cowards, who distill the texts of Vat. II to try to make them compatible with true Catholic orthodoxy [shameless ones]—are the ones who do the most harm to the Church.”
The image I have placed—the CEE takes away our faith—is taken from this blog, which, as one can see, is extremely primitive. At the end of the two articles it reproduces, it gives the links to infoCaótica that I indicate below.
–infoCaótica is a blog born to combat my articles on the philo-Lefebvrists and, I imagine, against InfoCatólica in general. InfoCatólica reported the birth of infoCaótica on its blog La Caverna, with an article by Arqueológicus Brutote, an eminent caveman, entitled The business expands. This new site began its course by publishing Glosses on the latest (Deo volente) article by Fr. Iraburu (I), Glosses on the latest (Deo volente) article by Fr. Iraburu (II) and Glosses on the latest (Deo volente) article by Fr. Iraburu (III).
One must confess that these infochaotics are erudite, they reason a great deal—though not well—and they argue with a sophisticated dialectic that recalls those rabbis who, interpreting the Talmud, “strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel” (Mt 23:24). They are able to count the hairs on a rabbit, but they cannot tell a bull from a cow. Bruno Moreno portrays them very well in Of dizzy partridges, schisms and Lefebvrists.
These infochaotics justify, of course, the episcopal ordinations of Archbishop Lefebvre, and see in them no disobedience whatsoever. They base their arguments on the most solid pillars. –Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that an unjust law does not oblige, and that it can be obligatory to resist it in conscience (STh I-II, 96, 4). Obedience, if it falls into excess, becomes servile (II-II, 104, 2). –Saint Robert Bellarmine says that “it is lawful to resist him who would try to destroy the Church, by not doing what he commands and by impeding the execution of his will” (De Romano Pontifice II, 29). –Cardinal Charles Journet: “One can imagine the performance of a canonical act, in all good faith, that is in reality contrary to the natural or evangelical law. In such a case, obedience will be impossible, and it will be better to accept excommunication with faith and humility.”
The infochaotics apply these lofty and noble principles to the extreme case of Archbishop Lefebvre, who ordains Bishops seeing the Fraternity of Saint Pius X as necessary to ensure “the continuity of the Church.” Since the postconciliar Popes are bent on the destruction of the Church, and since the canon law and the mandate of the Pope demanded an act contrary to the evangelical law, Lefebvre knew how to resist the unjust mandates, including that of the Pope, and, avoiding a servile obedience, he did what the good of the Church required, accepting excommunication humbly. An excommunication which, being radically unjust, was invalid… What formidable efforts these great infochaotic minds make, so worthy of being employed in better causes.
–Martin Ellingham posts on the document portal Scribd.com his article 24 anti-philo-Lefebvrist theses. He also published them on the blog Wanderer. And he also linked them from a thread he opened in the general discussion forums of Catholic.net. These 24 theses by Ellingham, making a parody of my thought—a device acceptable in principle in polemics—show to what absurd consequences it can lead.
Thesis 12, for example, says: “From the perspective of Christian morality all disobedience is ‘material schism.’ Thus, for example, clerics who do not fulfill the obligation to wear ecclesiastical dress incur the sin of ‘material –schism.’” If my thought leads to that stupidity, it is a clear sign that I have to redo my thought. Oh, dear: at my age.
–Ex-Orbe, one of the several blogs of a sharp writer who here signs as Terzio, publishes On a little article by Fr. Iraburu. He begins with praise of my poor person, only to go on immediately to assert that the postconciliar degradation in no way met sufficient resistance in “the formidable big figure” of Don Marcelo and the Toledans, nor in Fr. Rivera or Fr. Mendizábal, nor in juanpablism either. Nor in me and my analogues. To him I seem “somewhat pathetic, a knight of the sorrowful figure, lance at the ready.” The true resistance was and is centered on the Lefebvrists. He does not identify himself entirely with them, but he reproaches me: “To undermine the resisters is a way of allying oneself, whether one acknowledges it or not, with the enemy… I prefer to admire those in the castle, I confess it… I am clear, very clear, that they are not the enemy. Quite the contrary.”
–Catholic.net is the site on which Miles_dei opens a very promising discussion forum, Fr. Iraburu and the philo-Lefebvrists, but it lasted only one day, since it was closed by the new Director of Catholic.net, Mrs. Mayra Novelo. May God repay her.
–Asando la Manteca is the blog where Museros explains to us in Filomeno, to my regret that between the Protestants and the Lefebvrist FSSPX there is a great difference. We rather suspected as much.
–Coronel Kurtz, in his article Mail received: When a moralist writes to order about what he does not know comes to assert just that: 1st, that the undersigned writes “to order” (I would beg him to tell me, please, at whose order, so that I can pass him the invoice: do not forget to give me your Tax ID); and 2nd, that I write “about what I do not know.” Under such conditions my articles will inevitably fall into abysses of obscurity and stupidity.
Now you can see the state of the yard of Lefebvrists, philo-Lefebvrists and fellow-travelers. And once it is seen, you too will tell me whether it was not, and is not, necessary to tell them a few home truths: out of love for them and out of love for the Church. But you will not be able to tell me so in the Comments Room, since on this occasion I am leaving it closed. Being for two or three days at the mercy of the moderation of comments is very laborious, and what I need now is rest, prayer, reflection, calm, to come out of the ICU after being the epicenter of such a strong internet storm, and to prepare carefully, with God’s favor, Philo-Lefebvrists-IV.
Accompany me with your prayer.
Author: Fr. José María Iraburu
