Cathinfo and the 'resistance' perspective
Matthew, the owner of Cathinfo - a resistance forum has posted a response to a person that indicated his reasons for continuing to go to the SSPX.
Matthew's response is a timely reminder of some of the pitfalls that exist in departing from Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Discipline. There's a lot of FUD in the post, but I will add some of the more relevant passages below with my comments:
That is why I have to say the decision is one of PRUDENCE, not FAITH or DOGMA. If it was a matter of Faith, then those who chose wrongly would literally be going to hell. But such is not the case. It's about prudence -- a subjective judgment we make based on the information we have, and our own precise situation.I obviously disagree. The decision depends on who has compromised in Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Discipline. So the decision is about Faith and Dogma as well as Prudence. Based on their writing we know that the sedevacantists are primarily compromised on Dogma and Doctrine. We know that the 'resistance' is primarily compromised on Doctrine, Principles.
The SSPX is a monolithic, multi-national corporation. But that doesn't mean that its priests all participate in one "hive mind" or some nonsense like that. They are all individual souls. Some are liberal, and some are not. But they are all loyal to the Monster at this time, and they all have to be subject to it, following its laws and directives, and that is the problem with SSPX chapels.Well this was quite the screed, laws and directives are how order is maintained in an organization. Otherwise you simply have anarchy, but isn't that the modus operandi of the 'resistance'? Everyone doing what they want to do, when they want to do it, and how they want to do it. I would have recognized the 'resistance' for what it was even if I hadn't been studying Catholic Doctrine for 5 years before they had their epiphany. Simply put, I witnessed an SSPX priest 'lose it' because of obedience. This was a decade before the 'resistance' cobbled together all the malecontents who either left or were expelled from the SSPX since 2000.
Anyway, I'll take a "monolithic, multi-national" Catholic Order that hasn't compromised on Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Discipline any day of the year over a 'loose association' of former members of the SSPX.
Now on with Matthews thoughts ...
Even if you had the Cure of Ars offering daily Mass at your SSPX chapel, which happened to be built like a Cathedral, there is still the problem that your SSPX chapel is part of the SSPX Corporation with its liberal-ruled headquarters in Menzingen. You are going to have visits from the District Superior, etc. who will tell you that Vatican II isn't so bad, that we are excessive in our resistance to Vatican II, that we need to be more moderate, that Rome isn't so bad, etc.Well, I wonder if that is what he heard or what was actually said. Because Matthew, like all humans, will filter the information he receives to support his beliefs.
Those things were all said recently at my SSPX chapel in San Antonio, by Fr. Wegner. I'm not going to expose my children to priests uttering such lies. Vatican II is heretical and I want no part of it. It IS a superheresy, the biggest crisis to ever befall the Church. I am Traditional Catholic, the son of Traditional Catholics, and was raised Traditional Catholic from birth. The only way to react to Modernism/Vatican II/Conciliar Church is COMPLETE ABSTINENCE, complete aloofness. Everything else is dangerous compromise, supping with the devil.I think that Matthew has forgotten what heresy really is and the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. He has also forgotten (if he ever knew) the ways in which you can be schismatic. Also if the Pope calls and you aren't schismatic or sedevacantist, are you going to answer? A Catholic would, but it appears the Matthew would not. What does this lead us to conclude about Matthews beliefs???
When someone tries to tone down my resistance and hatred for Vatican II, a huge alarm goes off and I put up a wall of separation.Well that is consistent with the model I have below.
I also suppose that Matthew has forgotten what the SSPX has always held about the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
- Traditional: Accept
- Ambiguous: Accept with traditional interpretation
- Contradicting prior doctrine: Reject and request correction.