Maybe the 'resistance' isn't founded on heresy. Unfortunately, no 'resistor' that I have encountered online has provided explicit affirmation of the principles that I've discussed.
One "resistor" who did admit that the principles are Catholic so he had to accept them later balked at Obedience with an excuse that he didn't 'trust' the Pope et al. Now he is a home-aloner ala resistance.
It is strange how a conspiracy clouded mind can narrow the perspective to the point where people echo the modernists saying "St.Thomas never could have imagined this time, so we need to disregard X". I surrounded that with quotes because that was actually posted in answer to my discussion on obedience as per St. Thomas.
There are a number of elements that I find telling in my contacts with 'resistors': They are selective in their application of principles . It seems that the ends does justify the means for these people.They appea…
As a follow up to this article, and just in case someone believes that the SSPX didn't realize that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer were included in the lifting of the excommunication until much later - we have the following (Courtesy of the Remnant):
At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.(Emp. added)Bishop Fellay pointed out what should h…
In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson,
some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by
the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and
principles. From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of
Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991
consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.
Note: Modified from a Suscipe Domine Thread found here.
I have noticed that in the defense of +W et al, 'resistors' provide non-answers.
The following are the answers to questions that a Traditional Catholic should be able to provide with a little thought and research: Q. What is the Conciliar Church? A. A movement within the Church.
This expression is commonly understood, not as a distinct object or substance, but rather as a new spirit, introduced into the Church at the time of the Council Vatican II, and which constitutes an obstacle the end of the Church ( http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/04/has-sspx-strayed-from-teaching-of.html )
For resistance minded people the reasoning is very simple! Heresy: Whatever comes from Vatican 2 + Pope Francis et al, with no exception or distinction.Liberalism: Whatever comes from the mouth of Bp Fellay et al, with no exception or distinction.Good Traditional Catholicism: Whatever comes from the mouth of Fr. Pfeiffer et al, with no exception or distinction.
When they reach that point, it is useless to carry on an argument.
As the Apologetics manual states - if a person defends an absurdity, there is no reason to continue the discussion.
In simpler terms, if a person is not thinking rationally during the argument, the presentation of objective evidence that contradicts their position will simply cause them to hold on that much stronger to their delusion.
I have personally encountered this phenomenon in discussion…
My conclusion about the "resistance" in general is that their "issues" are based on a malformed understanding of the Church, in particular the Teachings on the Four Marks and Visibility.
While I hold Bishop Williamson (as 'moral' leader) and Fr. Pfeiffer (as ? Leader) as prime examples, a number of the 'resistance' clerics have provided evidence of the same error (SSPX vs Resistance Ecclesiology ).
A number of 'resistors' that I have encountered have taken issue with my conclusions in general ( Series: Resistance Heresy )and what follows below in particular: Thus where Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly that the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay (Superior General since 1994) and Fr Nicholas Pfluger (First Assistant since 2006) insist today that there can only be one Church,and so the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.Natura…
The four marks of the Church are integral to external elements that constitute the visibility of the Church:
A unity that can be traced back to the Apostles in Government, Faith, & Worship.
A universality from the beginning to end of time embracing all peoples in the profession of the same faith.
The marks and the visibility of the Church are woven into a tapestry of
the Church. Remove or mar one and the entire tapestry is ruined.
A Church that lacks this visibility, cannot be the Church, just as a Church that lacks the Four Marks cannot …
Apostolic Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka The Roman Catechism)
The true Church is also to be recognised from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.
As before, I don't have time to clean up all the text 'interpretations from Adobe. Please refer to the original text for further clarity.
"Catholic" Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka The Roman Catechism)
The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic; that is, universal. And justly is she called Catholic,
because, as St. Augustine says, she is diffused by the splendour of one faith from the rising to the setting sun."
Unlike states of human institution, or the sects of heretics, she is not confined to any one country or class of
men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or
freemen, male or female. Therefore it is written: Thou . . . hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom. Speaking of the Church, David says: Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheri…
The second Mark of the Church is that She is "Holy". At this point I personally know that there are Traditionalists who will point (metaphorically) at the Clown Masses etc and say "That isn't Holy".
Yep they're right, but that isn't a reflection on the part of the Dogma of the Church.
"Holy" Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka The Roman Catechism)
The second mark of the Church is holiness, as we learn from these words of the Prince of the Apostles: You are a chosen generation, a holy nation. The Church is called holy because she is consecrated and dedicated to God; for so other things when set apart and dedicated to the worship of God were wont to be called holy, even though they were material. Examples of this in the Old Law were vessels, vestments and altars. In the same sense the first-born who were dedicated to the Most High God were also called holy.