Where are Bishop Williamson and the 'resistance' going?

JMJ

For the most part the 'resistance' associates put forth a more or less continuous stream of attacks against the leadership of the SSPX.

However, periodically they take a breath and pull back the curtain on the principles which guide their actions.

Such an event happened when Bishop Williamson sat at his computer to write EC384.

Sifting out the various insinuations and manipulative tactics (intentional or otherwise) we find the following assertion:

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

In this short collection of words, Bishop Williamson has exposed with greater clarity the principle that is at variance with those of the SSPX.

Parsing the quoted statement we find that:

Bishop Williamson believes that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that
The 'Conciliar Church',
by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church
was not the Catholic Church

Before proceeding, it is important to understand that, according to Church dogma, there is only one Church of Christ. There can never be two Churches that possess all four Marks of the Catholic Church.

Since you can't lose something you don't possess, the assertions made by Bishop Williamson (2 & 3) support the conclusion that prior to the loss of "all four Marks of the Catholic Church", the "Conciliar Church" was the Church of Christ.

Joining this with his final assertion, we reach Bishop Williamson's conclusion that the Catholic Church is no longer the Church of Christ.

What is disingenuous of BishopWilliamson, is that he ascribes this belief to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Of course by doing so he gains political capital among his associates by reducing cognitive dissonance, at the expense of the truth.Once one Catholic principle (true obedience) falls, others (Indefectibility of the Church, Catholic doctrine of the Four Marks, etc) are sure to follow.

However, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have not deviated from their understanding of the phrase "Conciliar Church", if Bishop Williamson ever shared that understanding, it is obvious that he has departed from it.

Should Bishop Williamson publish a correction, I would be very pleased. However, it has been over a year since a traditionalist acquaintance forwarded my original critique of EC281 to his excellency, so I very much doubt that a correction will be forthcoming.

P^3

Prayer

Penance

Patience

Comments

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

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

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches: "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+ JMJ 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.

Tradicat

Search This Blog