j'ai découvert en anglais (trop log à traduire) du même auteur:
1) <the sensible bond / the logorrhea flow / blogspot> et
2) <the sensible bond / why I left SSPX / blogspot>
deux longues analyses qui montrent son écartèlement [aussi le mien] entre
1) une nécessaire distance avec les bavardages approximatifs sinon confinant au relativisme etc du pape François (oct 2013) et
2) la moins nécessaire distance (avril 2004) avec la "privatisation de la théologie" menant à un schisme pratique impossible à avouer.
je ne recopie que la fin de "pourquoi j'ai quitté la SSPX" et vous renvoie entièrement sur le site pour "le flot de logorrhée'

Conclusions
And so, just before Easter 2004, I went to confession to a local priest who had become a friend and with whom I had discussed many of these issues. He heard my confession, and then very gently asked me:
_ ‘Are you in communion with the Bishop of Rome?’
_ ‘Communion,’ he said … that word that appears on all the front pages of papal encyclicals ‘to the bishops in peace and communion with the Apostolic See’
_ ‘I think I am,’ I said. ‘I consider that I am in communion with him.’
_ ‘But,’ he said very kindly, ‘it doesn’t matter what you think; it matters what the Bishop of Rome says.’
It was if anything in that moment of grace that I began to recognise the one error that ran through all the SSPX theses: a kind of privatisation of judgment. I’ll say it again: they live by a privatisation of judgment in their canonical, theological and liturgical life which leads them into an autonomous situation with regard to these three areas of ecclesial life. It is well meant. It is an instinct of self preservation. It seems to be the most logical and the most effective means of keeping the faith in a time of serious disintegration. But it is, nevertheless, a line of thought and conduct which is self-authenticating.
_ And what is wrong with self-authentification in the Church? The traditionalists very often quote that line of St Paul who, when he came to Jerusalem, ‘withstood Peter to the face’ because St Peter was equivocating with Judaic practices. They rarely, if ever, mention that other journey which St Paul made to Jerusalem — or was it Damascus? — after he had been taught the gospel by Christ himself in the wilderness. For on that journey, Paul went to the other apostles to have his gospel authenticated. It was not enough for him to have had visions from heaven itself. As a minister and servant of the gospel, his action required the Church’s approval.
_ And if privatisation was the prime error I could see running through the SSPX theses, the other thing I noticed was that time and time again, their references to the Church were always to some eternal Church of all time — ‘eternal Rome’ ABL called it — language that the SSPX continue to use. And yet, neither their canonical nor their theological nor their liturgical thinking seemed to be conceived in an ecclesial context, as I have tried to show above. If adhering to what they call the Church of all time is the key, why is the Church so absent from their thinking, in the episcopal consecrations, in their theological theses, and their criticism of the new liturgy?
_

And so, I upped sticks at the Easter of 2004, shook the dust from my feet, and went back home to the House of the Lord. ==> I do not argue with anger against the SSPX. I do not hate them and all their works, as some people have said. In fact I recognise that I owe an immense amount to them, and much even to the notorious Bishop Williamson who told my eldest nephew and godson in India in 2008 that I had been ‘a very naughty boy’! I can understand why people might fulfil their Sunday obligations there. I can understand why people trust their pastoral guidance. I appreciate how desperate Catholics can become when faced with everything from the Assisi of John Paul II to the Blue Mosque of Benedict XVI. I do, however, think, the SSPX have created in the long run a false solution to a real problem. This is the key.
==>Many of the problems they identify are real. But they are not contributing except tangentially to changing those problems. And the more Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier announce apocalyptic dramas as the only possible outcome to the situation, the more ordinary folk must look to better counsel.
==> It is not those who reconcile who have become tired with the fight. They have understood that unless they undertake the fight within the Church, in that unity which comes from the Holy Ghost and is visibly inscribed in hierarchical structures, then they will end up like every other individual who has loved the Church so much he wanted her conformed to his own image of the Church.
==> Reconciling does of course require the acknowledgment of certain errors on which the SSPX position is dependent. Yet recognising these things does not involve confessing that the errors and evils abroad in the mainstream are good things. Still, it does mean the SSPX must renounce privatised ecclesial thought, autonomous governance, and at the very least confess the Catholic character of the reformed missal (they do not have to celebrate it!). Only then can their voice acquire the authentic ecclesial character which will make them persuasive witnesses of those things they rightly remind the rest of the Church about.

Soutenir le Forum Catholique dans son entretien, c'est possible. Soit à l'aide d'un virement mensuel soit par le biais d'un soutien ponctuel. Rendez-vous sur la page dédiée en cliquant ici. D'avance, merci !