Skip to main content

Laying it on the Line

+
JMJ


I had thought that Bishop Williamson was starting to see through the fog of conspiracies because of the light of true doctrine.

Then he wrote this:
But what has happened to Tradition without the Archbishop to guide it? Alas, the authorities at the top of his Society of St Pius X, which for some 40 years spearheaded the defence of the objective Faith, cannot have been praying seriously enough to protect their minds and hearts from being in turn infected by subjectivism. They too have lost the primacy of objective truth, and so they are being played by the Romans like a fish is played by a fisherman. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!



So here it is, laying it on the line:

  1. The 'resistance' leaders et al have demonstrated a faulty (ie erroneous) understanding of the Four Marks which darkens (to say the least) their concepts of ecclesiology.
  2. This darkness has reached the extent that there is NO difference between 'resistance' and sede-vacantist ecclesiologies 
    1. Noticed this when I happened upon yet another sede site.
  3. True disobedience is a sin
  4. Fear mongering is simply FUD spelt backwards (see ad-nauseum fallacy)
  5. Doctrine illumines principles, principles guide action.  Faulty doctrine leads to faulty principles which leads to bad actions.  
This is the story of the resistance.  

Their entire effort rests upon a faulty foundation (doctrine) which is why they have no problem re-imagining the Catholic Principles that the Archbishop used to guide his relations with Rome. Which is why they can't seem to stop with the calumny, detraction, and false accusations.

I don't need an undergrad degree in theology or to listen to the on-going youtube 'sermons' to find out if the resistance is right.

It is simple:
  • The two groups (SSPX and former-SSPX) each hold two incompatible doctrinal positions on ecclesiology.
  • Ecclesiology is a fairly well defined area of Theology, otherwise the SSPX wouldn't have a Theological leg to stand on.  Church Teaching (ie Four Marks) is clear. *
  • Ergo there are only three possibilities
    • SSPX= right, 'resistance'=wrong
    • SSPX =wrong, 'resistance'=right
    • SSPX =wrong, 'resistance'=wrong
  • The position of the SSPX is completely consistent with Church Teaching (see four marks etc)
  • The position of the former-SSPX self styled 'resistance' is completely inconsistent with Church Teaching.
Ergo: SSPX = RIGHT, 'resistance' (aka sspx-mc, sspx-so etc etc etc)=WRONG


P^3


Note
* The only problem is that most people need to set aside their kindergarten Catechism and man-up to reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent without any sede-vacantist interpretations.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Look Back: A short history of the SSPX

 + JMJ  I started a timeline a while back but never finished it.  Fortunately, here's one that brings us up to 1994!!! P^3 http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-1.htm   A short history of the SSPX A presentation given by Fr. Ramon Angles in Kansas City, MO, on the 25th Anniversary of the founding of the SSPX and reprinted from the January 1996 issue of The Angelus . Part 1 The history of the Society of St. Pius X begins, of course, in the mind of God. But do not believe that its temporal origin is to be found solely at the time of the post-conciliar crisis. The Society of St. Pius X was made possible ...

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...

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

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...