Laying it on the Line

JMJ

I had thought that Bishop Williamson was starting to see through the fog of conspiracies because of the light of true doctrine.

Then he wrote this:

But what has happened to Tradition without the Archbishop to guide it? Alas, the authorities at the top of his Society of St Pius X, which for some 40 years spearheaded the defence of the objective Faith, cannot have been praying seriously enough to protect their minds and hearts from being in turn infected by subjectivism. They too have lost the primacy of objective truth, and so they are being played by the Romans like a fish is played by a fisherman. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!

So here it is, laying it on the line:

The 'resistance' leaders et al have demonstrated a faulty (ie erroneous) understanding of the Four Marks which darkens (to say the least) their concepts of ecclesiology.
This darkness has reached the extent that there is NO difference between 'resistance' and sede-vacantist ecclesiologies

Noticed this when I happened upon yet another sede site.

True disobedience is a sin
Fear mongering is simply FUD spelt backwards (see ad-nauseum fallacy)
Doctrine illumines principles, principles guide action. Faulty doctrine leads to faulty principles which leads to bad actions.

This is the story of the resistance.

Their entire effort rests upon a faulty foundation (doctrine) which is why they have no problem re-imagining the Catholic Principles that the Archbishop used to guide his relations with Rome. Which is why they can't seem to stop with the calumny, detraction, and false accusations.

I don't need an undergrad degree in theology or to listen to the on-going youtube 'sermons' to find out if the resistance is right.

It is simple:

The two groups (SSPX and former-SSPX) each hold two incompatible doctrinal positions on ecclesiology.
Ecclesiology is a fairly well defined area of Theology, otherwise the SSPX wouldn't have a Theological leg to stand on. Church Teaching (ie Four Marks) is clear. *
Ergo there are only three possibilities

SSPX= right, 'resistance'=wrong
SSPX =wrong, 'resistance'=right
SSPX =wrong, 'resistance'=wrong

The position of the SSPX is completely consistent with Church Teaching (see four marks etc)
The position of the former-SSPX self styled 'resistance' is completely inconsistent with Church Teaching.

Ergo: SSPX = RIGHT, 'resistance' (aka sspx-mc, sspx-so etc etc etc)=WRONG

P^3

Note
* The only problem is that most people need to set aside their kindergarten Catechism and man-up to reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent without any sede-vacantist interpretations.

Comments

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog