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

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

By
 + 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
Post a Comment
Read more

Schism

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

By
+ 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...
Post a Comment
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