Challenges to the 'Resistance' - ie Bishop Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer, Girouard, Chazel, Rua, Hewko, et al

+

JMJ

There is a very real danger to Traditional Catholics in this crisis.

Because the crisis runs right up to the Vicar of Christ (ever more apparent in the present Pontificate), who is the principle of the Unity of Faith and Communion (aka Government) - there is a risk that people begin to differ between what they believe to be the Catholic Faith and what actually is the Catholic Faith.

The Sede-vacantists and Ultra-Liberal Catholics are prime examples of this risk manifesting itself, when taken to its extreme conclusion.

The recent association of 'resistance' priests is another example.

As noted here, here, here, here, here, here and recently here, the resistance appears to have a false notion (ie heretical) of what constitutes the Four Marks of the Church.

How can anyone claim to be following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre and hold such opinions?

The answer is that the opinions that the 'resistance' hold are not compatible with Catholicism (be it Dogma, Doctrine, or Principles), therefore assuming that Archbishop Lefebvre was following the Catholic Church in these matters, the 'resistance' cannot be following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.

This crisis is bad and it appears to be getting worse, but another Catholic Principle that the 'resistance' has abandoned is this:

The Ends Do NOT Justify The Means

If the means are not Catholic, then the people employing them are not following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.

P^3




Rambling summary of thoughts on the 'resistance':

1. They cherry pick quotes that support their position and ignoring those that do not. (confirmation bias). Entering into a quote-war is pointless. Hence the reason I pull the discussion back to Dogma,Doctrine and Catholic Principles.
2. Some key points for more 'resistors':
   
1. Obedience - resistors should examine the following scenario in light of the principle of obedience described here.
1. Resistor (as superior general of the SSPX) believes that Pope Francis has issued a command and needs to determine that it meets the conditions for True Obedience
2. He knows (or at least professes to know/believe) that Pope Francis is the duly elected successor of St. Peter and is the Vicar of Christ.
1. This satisfies condition #1: The person is in authority
   
3. The command is to accept a canonical regularization
1. It is within the scope of the Pope's authority to issue such a command. (See Vatican 1)
   
4.  The canonical solution meets all of the SSPX's six conditions
1. The command not represent an immediate occasion of sin
5. The Pope publicly states that Rome agree's with the six conditions of the SSPX and the CDF publicly agrees with the Pope and supports this by the actual documents put forward to the SSPX. This is done even after the SSPX criticises Assisi IV.
1. This command does not represent a proximate occasion of sin as the Pope has made clear publicly that a compromise is not required and that all of the conditions of the SSPX will be adhered to.
6. What would the resistor do?
1. If he says he would not obey - then he would
   
1. Trust his own judgement of the internal dispositions of the Pope over that of the objective facts and Catholic principles.
   
2. Abandon the principle of obedience, deviating from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre who cited this principle as the foundation for his disobedience ie New Mass, Council and episcopal consecrations.
   
3. In practice
   
1. Deny the authority of the Pope and committed what could be construed as a schismatic act. 
   
2. Align himself with the sede-vacantists.
4. Sin Mortally against God
   
2. If he says he would obey - then he would
   
1. Trust God would help him because he has done all he can humanly do to ascertain that the conditions for obedience were present.
   
2. Follow the path of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay
3. Act in accordance with the principle of obedience
4. Practice virtue
3. For me the path is clear.
2. Dogmatic Deviations (ie Heresy):
1. Which of the two is the correct description of the Mark of Apostolicity of the Church of Christ?
1. The Church of Christ can be recognized by its design to spread the Faith to all people and to all places. 
2. The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
2. Answer #2 is correct  and #1 is in essence, Fr Pfeiffer's answer.
3. How can someone who teaches false doctrine be following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre? ( Fr. Pfeiffer as Apple, Bishop Williamson as Tree ).  The error of Fr. Pfeiffer is no less serious that that of the modernists - both are heretical.
3. Does the resistor adhere to the Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Principles?
1. Because the 'resistance' has
   
1. Abandoned the principle of obedience by their actions. There was no compromise and no agreement, yet they continued in their revolt.
   
2. Abandoned the understanding of the Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX that the 'conciliar Church' is a movement within the Church of Christ.
3. Abandoned Catholic Dogma by teaching false notions of the Four Marks of the Church, and its Visibility.
2. How can one follow these people and still call themselves Catholic and say they follow the True Faith?