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

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
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...
8 comments
Read more

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

By
+ 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.
2 comments
Read more

America Magazine: Why liturgy is not a space for self-expression

By
 + JMJ Introduction I subscribed to Jesuit Review America Magazine in order to improve my perspective on the crisis of the Church. At first, I found that I had a hard time reading through the articles that caught my attention.  Actually, at best, I didn't get further than a few sentences.  Mostly due to demands on what time I have left on this Good Earth. Then a title caught my eye in a latest article ... someone is saying that the Liturgy is not a space for self-expression.  Then there's the Performative Piety?  What does this mean? What is Performative Piety? I had a sense that "Performative Piety" is the practice of making external acts of piety to be seen by others and Matthew 6:1 (link) confirms this thought. Let's break down the Knox translation: Be sure you do not perform your acts of piety before men ,  for them to watch ;  if you do that,  you have no title to a reward from your Father who is in heaven. If you stopped after the first ph...
Post a Comment
Read more

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

By
 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Did Rome believe that the Bishops of the SSPX incurred the penalty of excommunication? - Updated

By
+ JMJ See Update below ... A reader asked me the following question: Hi P^3 Help me straighten out a friend, can you please get me the Vatican documentation saying that the Bishops were not guilty of excommunication, my friend thinks the Vatican still considered all guilty but removed the excommunication of the 4 Bishops as a sign of good will. Thanks A.S.  I think your friend is materially correct - here's the section of the letter the remits the excommunication: On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication  latae sententiae  incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. So, as far as Rome was concerned,...
2 comments
Read more