Ukrainian conciliar Catholic Cardinal Lubomyr Husar was a conciliar revolutionary known for his ecumenism. See, e.g., this 2007 description of his participation at ecumenical “unity” conferences with various heretics and schismatics. http://www.olconference.com/OL_PastCon_EE_II.html (This linked article includes his group photo with the heretics and schismatics.)
Recently, Husar died and God has now judged him. Let us pray for him, just as we pray for Pope John Paul II and the rest of the conciliar revolutionaries who have committed so much evil and have betrayed Our Lord and their sacred duties. However, faithful Catholics must strongly condemn Husar’s long service as a conciliar revolutionary and his dedication to the new ecumenical religion.1
Faithful Catholics do not praise Husar any more than they celebrate the jubilee of a conciliar religious—honoring his service in the conciliar church. Such service is truly a cause of sorrow, not celebration.
In a recent article, the “new” SSPX minimizes the conciliar evil Husar promoted and asks us to praise Husar. However, the “new” SSPX does not tell us anything good he did for Christ the King and for the true Traditional Catholic Church. There is no evidence Husar is worthy of praise.
As quoted below, the N-SSPX gives an account of Husar’s life and death. Regarding his liberalism, the article blandly notes that unnamed conservatives have criticized Husar for “certain liberal theological and ecumenical tendencies”. The N-SSPX does not include itself among these conservative critics. Also, the “new” SSPX says Husar—a well-known ecumenist—had perhaps too much indifference toward dogmatic issues—but the cowardly N-SSPX itself does not take a position on the question.
Here are the “new” SSPX’s words:
Husar has been criticized by conservatives in the UGCC [Ukrainian Catholic Church] for certain liberal theological and ecumenical tendencies. Rather than answering [schismatic] Eastern Orthodox objections to certain Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception as Cardinal Slipyj had done, Husar preferred instead to stress the common patrimony of the Greco-Catholics and Orthodox with perhaps too much indifference toward the dogmatic issues that separate the two communions.2
As quoted below, the “new” SSPX also says Husar played a “crucial role” in the (evil) conciliar church. Other conciliar revolutionaries, like Pope John Paul II3 also played a crucial role. But Husar (like Pope John Paul II) was an ecumenist and his “crucial role” harmed the true Catholic Church.
Here are the “new” SSPX’s words, which begin by minimizing Husar’s evil work for the new conciliar religion:
Though there are reasons to take a cautious, if not critical, approach to certain aspects of Husar’s leadership, there can be no denying that he played a crucial role in bridging the UGCC from the sorrowful period of its suppression to its current point of ongoing revitalization. For that much, at least, he can be praised. 4
Thus, the “new” SSPX wants us to praise Husar for his “crucial role” in the conciliar church in Ukraine. But he promoted conciliar error! His role was evil and not praiseworthy!
When asking us to praise Husar, the only other thing the N-SSPX tells us is that he suffered hardships. The N-SSPX recounts that Husar fled when a war broke out and suffered as a pawn in geopolitics.
But St. Thomas Aquinas explains that a man does not deserve praise for what is done to him (i.e., suffered) but rather for his virtue with which he acts and suffers.5 The N-SSPX gives us no evidence that whatever Husar did and suffered was done or suffered well (virtuously) for Christ the King and for the true Catholic Church.
Millions of people suffer from wars, from geopolitics, from hurricanes and other calamities. Although we should pity these people, we should not praise them for suffering, as the N-SSPX asks us to praise Husar.
Plainly, what Husar suffered is no more a reason to praise him than is Husar’s crucial role supporting the conciliar revolution and dedicating his life to the new conciliar religion.
We pray for him. But his life was an objective failure because he spent his life harming Our Lord’s Mystical Body and promoting the evil, new conciliar religion.
By calling for us to praise Husar, the “new” SSPX continues its praise and admiration for the conciliar revolutionaries who are crucifying Our Lord’s Mystical Body and who are promoting the evil conciliar religion. Below we list a few more examples of the “new” SSPX praising conciliar revolutionaries. The N-SSPX:
The “new” SSPX continues to praise conciliar revolutionaries who crucify Our Lord’s Mystical Body and who promote the new conciliar religion.
By seeing whom the “new” SSPX praises and admires, we see into whose likeness it is transforming itself.