Resistance Round-Up for the Month

JMJ

I've decided that posting only periodically on the 'Resistance' is a better course instead of jumping on every statement that they make. The reason is that, since they produce a fair number of statements that contradict or mislead, I would be constantly talking about them.

So here's this month's compilation. Starting with Bishop Williamson's EC420, in which he produces a fair muddling of doctrine and personal opinion.

Take Archbishop Lefebvre’s own case. Firstly, it was very important to him that the Statutes of the original SSPX were officially approved by the diocesan bishop of Geneva, Lausanne and Fribourg. Secondly, for instance, if a priest of the SSPX wanted to quit the SSPX, to right or to left, the Archbishop had no power to stop him or to punish him except by having nothing more to do with him. And if that priest departed towards the Novus Ordo Church, he was often greeted, as one can imagine, with open arms. The SSPX under Bishop Fellay has more and more wanted to be normal and has pretended it is normal, but actually it is a weak structure insofar as it has never had any jurisdiction more than supplied (this is one reason why Bishop Fellay so wants to be re-integrated into the mainstream Church). EC420

What erroneous conclusions would be that the Superior General of the SSPX has no authority over the members of the SSPX. That would be jumping over a large number of faulty premises to arrive at that conclusion.

The truth is that the SSPX was canonically erected and, the SSPX maintains, illicitly suppressed in violation of the laws of the Church. Any priest that wants to 'leave' the SSPX is able to do so, as like wise (despite Bishop Williamson's protests to the contrary) the Superior General has the power and authority to expel members from the SSPX.

The key point is that Bishop Williamson has embedded his own opinion as to the motivations for the SSPX being willing to accept a canonical regularization. Bishop Williamson (following FUD) implies that the SSPX is desperately seeking a regularization of its own accord. Whereas the reality is that Rome instigated the discussions etc. As Bishop Williamson used to say: Lies, Lies, Lies. However, in this case it is innuendo and suspicion and doubts.

The second item that I'd like to point out is a confirmation of my conclusion that the 'resistance' is founded upon doctrinal heresy concerning the Church. The latest issue of the 'recusant', a UK resistance newsletter, contains the following statement:

Bishop Fellay said clearly, on 20th December at the seminary in La Reja: “The official Church is the visible church, it is the Catholic Church, full stop.” All who dare contradict this peremptory judgement will be destroyed and crushed one way or another. But don’t worry, we can rest easy: nothing has been signed!

The statement by Bishop Fellay is a 'peremptory judgement'?

Well, if he is stating Catholic Doctrine and 'resistors' want to deny it - then I think he is justified in excluding those people from the chapels of the SSPX.

Why?

Because effectively they are heretics and are undermining the work of the SSPX in the salvation of souls.

I discussed briefly the visibility of the Church here and it would behoove all Catholics to understand the difference between rhetorical devices and doctrine when examining the talks of Archbishop Lefevre.

Most resistors that I have encountered have a very hard time swallowing the FACT that the Church of Christ is the organization under the leadership of Pope Francis.

This 'editorial' is just further evidence to supports my conclusion that the resistance sees the Church like this:

This viewpoint creates more problems than it solves. Specifically, how is a person to recognize the Church of Christ?

Whereas, the SSPX has always seen it like this:

If the 'resistor' thesis is a result of the lack of canonical status within the Church, then I see the salvation of souls being in jeopardy if the situation is prolonged by any action of the SSPX. If the Pope were to issue a no-compromise solution (see six conditions) then the SSPX should (with due prudence) accept such a solution in order to prevent more deluded souls from being lost in the fog of war like the resistors.

That's enough for today ...

P^3

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

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

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

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

Tradicat

Search This Blog