Skip to main content

A Perspective on the 'Resistance'

Image
By
+
JMJ


I received the following perspective on arguing with the 'resistance' who are strongly influended by their confirmation bias (see also cognitive biases).

For resistance minded people the reasoning is very simple!
  • Heresy: Whatever comes from Vatican 2 + Pope Francis et al, with no exception or distinction.
  • Liberalism: Whatever comes from the mouth of Bp Fellay et al, with no exception or distinction.
  • Good Traditional Catholicism: Whatever comes from the mouth of Fr. Pfeiffer et al, with no exception or distinction.
When they reach that point, it is useless to carry on an argument.  


As the Apologetics manual states - if a person defends an absurdity, there is no reason to continue the discussion.

In simpler terms, if a person is not thinking rationally during the argument, the presentation of objective evidence that contradicts their position will simply cause them to hold on that much stronger to their delusion.

I have personally encountered this phenomenon in discussions with 'resistors' and sede-vacantists.

When you reach that point, you have only one option left: Prayer.

As an aside, I've found modern Catholics and Protestants more reasonable in religious discussions than either of the aforementioned groups.

This, I believe, is a manifestation of the dangers of this prolonged crisis of the Church. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.

P^3
Labels:

Comments

  1. Brian TorsellApril 13, 2015 at 8:41 PM

    If this is all you have encountered with the Resistance, you need to find some new "resistors" to talk to. Or better yet, an actual priest of the Resistance. One who gives clear answers, unlike the double-speak from +Fellay and Menzingen. There are others in the Resistance beside +Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer who could help you see through the misinformation from Menzingen and internet rumors. The Dominicans of Avrille, for example: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/

    I can only speak for myself, not other resistors/Catholics, but I call heresy whatever the Catholic Church has declared as heresy, especially in the deliberately ambiguous Vatican II documents. I call liberalism (and modernism, and all the evil "-isms" in the world) whatever the Catholic Church has declared as such, especially when any bishop, +Fellay or otherwise, is promoting it. Since (Traditional) Catholicism can only be "good", I only follow the clergy that promote it. Only if it is the same Faith all the Saints, Popes of Tradition and Our Lord Jesus Christ have handed down. (Yes, that was with distinction.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. TradicalApril 18, 2015 at 10:53 AM

    Hi Brian,

    I think you need to browse my blog a little more before you jump to any conclusions about my understanding of the 'resistance'.

    I understand that you are both Canadian and working with Tony La Rosa. I've encountered Tony many times over the last four years, had discussions with a number of 'resistors' and examined some their writings on doctrine - particularly the Four Marks etc.

    Concerning 'misinformation', I find it interesting that you use that word.

    In making my decisions, I compare the positions of the SSPX and the 'Resistance' against the Dogmas, Doctrines and Principles of the Catholic Church.

    I have weighed the 'Resistance' in the balance and found them woefully wanting.

    I suggest you have a look at this link: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/search/label/Series%20-%20Heresy%20of%20the%20%27Resistance%27

    Cordially,

    Tradical

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

What Archbishop Lefebvre Said About the New Mass - SSPX.org

By
+ JMJ The New Mass is many things and one thing that it is is ambiguous.  While there are a few Catholic elements in the Novus Ordo, but even those are lost in the morass of protestant simulation. It truly is a case of : P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org: What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

Does the SSPX 'Reject the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council'? (Updated 2026-08-03)

By
 + JMJ Update: Dr. Lamont, in a Rorate article (link) , pointed out that : It is notable that the profession does not reject any text of the Second Vatican Council, but only states that the influence of the Council promoted deviations from the faith. Catholics may hold that the influence of an ecumenical council was noxious in some respects. It is only the authoritative teachings of a council that demand their assent; they do not have to approve of all the historical results that it led to. One may, for example, reasonably hold that the definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the First Vatican Council led to an exaggerated and harmful conception of papal power, while accepting the definitions themselves. Further what the SSPX actually wrote (link) : I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
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.
17 comments
Read more