Skip to main content

On Catholics, Authority, the SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantism, Modernists and Modern Catholics

+
JMJ



I had an insight yesterday morning as I prepared for work.

Actually it is thanks to gullible's response:
Tradical: You should read my articles on Obedience (link). Is there anything specifically sinful in the legislation? Technically speaking no. 
Gullible: wow   (Source)
A key difference between the Catholic and UnCatholic response to this crisis is that a catholic is, on principle, ready and willing to obey the orders coming from an authority as long as they meet the criteria set out by St. Thomas Aquinas. 

They don't let fear, uncertainty or doubt get in the way.  They deal with the reality. 

It doesn't matter if the authority is ecclesiastical or civil, so that is why the SSPX continues to echo Samuel:
Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. (Source)
 All authority comes from God, including ecclesiastical and civil.  To disobey authority without real cause is to echo the demons "I will not serve".

A Catholic is always willing to serve an authority,when able to do so.

This is the defining aspect of the resistance and sedevacantists. They will not serve because they arrogate to themselves an authority they do not have. 

Sedevacantists and benny-vacantists  usurp authority by deciding for themselves who is and is not pope.  The opinions of various saints are used to prop themselves up, but remain just opinions.  No one with authority has made a decision. 

The resistance likewise arrogate an authority to themselves based on various excuses of 'compromise' but in what really appears to be pride. If it is other than pride that motivates their disobedience and hatred for the sspx, I do not know.  They decided that the sspx should not be in discussions with the modernists. Having cut themselves off from catholic principles, they no longer recognize as catholic the obedience due to authority. Hence their rapid fragmentation into a plethora of factions united only in their rejection of authority on the basis fear uncertainty and doubt. They aren't even united in the faith as they reject obedience. 

The modernists, even those in positions of authority,  likewise usurp authority by issuing orders against the faith.  In these they ought not to be obeyed.
Finally, we have Modern Catholics, who in blissful ignorance disobey Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, Principles without a thought. Ignorant because they have practically never heard it from the mouths of their pastors.  While they have an obligation to seek the truth, they trust the Church Teaching and are betrayed. They, in large part I believe, have much less on their consciences than the 'resistance' and sedevacantists.  
How so?
Because the 'resistance' and 'sedevacantists' both had the gift to see the crisis and received it in the bitterness of their ungrateful hearts.  There it festered and was transformed into poison. A poison that clouds their judgement and their view on the crisis.  A poison that causes them to abandon, bit by bit, Catholicism without them knowing it.  They are ungrateful (see this article on Gratitude)

The same may happen to Modern Catholics living in the ecumenical melting pot, but they haven't been given the same graces as the 'resistance' and 'sedevacantists'.
And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.(Source: Luke 12:48)
Something to ponder: by obeying or disobeying whom are you imitating:
Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Or

Satan, the fallen Angel's, or heretics like luther?

How would you know?

It is simple, set aside fear uncertainty and doubt and follow the catholic principle of obedience of authority. 

As a Catholic your first step is to always be willing to obey.  Then examining whether you can obey. Then obeying when required.

Hence the reason why the agitation over the clauses in the policy at theCalgary  school are simply more 'FUD'

P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.