The 'resistance' and its heresy - A Synopsis

+

JMJ

My conclusion about the "resistance" in general is that their "issues" are based on a malformed understanding of the Church, in particular the Teachings on the Four Marks and Visibility.

While I hold Bishop Williamson (as 'moral' leader) and Fr. Pfeiffer (as ? Leader) as prime examples, a number of the 'resistance' clerics have provided evidence of the same error (SSPX vs Resistance Ecclesiology ).

A number of 'resistors' that I have encountered have taken issue with my conclusions in general  ( Series: Resistance Heresy )and what follows below in particular:

Thus where Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly that the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay (Superior General since 1994) and Fr Nicholas Pfluger (First Assistant since 2006) insist today that there can only be one Church, and so the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Naturally then, where the Archbishop kept the SSPX at a safe dQuestionfrom the Conciliar Church, Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger want to abolish that distance and bring the SSPX back within that Church which is Conciliar. And neither Bishop Fellay nor Fr Pfluger will feel Catholic until they have achieved that end.

The first is that Bishop Williamson is ascribing a belief to Archbishop Lefebvre.  This is simply one of the tactics used - to ascribe to another a belief that he (Bishop Williamson) wishes to impart upon his readers. (Of Apples and Trees )

The questions then become:

1. What does Bishop Williamson and the 'resistance' believe concerning the Church, the Four Marks?
2. Does Bishop Williamson have a different subjective understanding of the phrase and the follow on comments quoted above?
3. Is this understanding consistent with that of Archbishop Lefebvre? 
4. Is this understanding consistent with the Doctrine of the Church?

From my perspective, what Archbishop Lefebvre believed is irrelevant in this context.  The remaining questions ( 1,2,4) are at the root of this disagreement.

This leads us to two more questions - that must be answered in order to answer the ones above:

1. What is meant by the term "conciliar church"?
2. Where are the Marks of the  Catholic found today.

The sspx understands the the term "conciliar church" as a movement within the Catholic Church ( DICI: Can one speak of the Conciliar Church?).

The Marks of the Church ( Has the SSPX Strayed from the Teaching of the Church) are found in the:

The Church founded by Christ [which] is an external visible commonwealth (sent. certa.) ... A threefold sensible bond binds the members of the Church to one another, and makes them known as such: the profession of the same Faith, the use of the same means of grace, and the subordination to the same authority. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ott 1954) SSPX vs Resistance Comparison of Ecclesiology 

So where is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ?

The 'visible commonwealth' that is the Church of Christ is found under the leadership (for better or worse ... so far worse) of Pope Francis.

Now IF Bishop Williamson et al have this same understanding of:

1. Conciliar Church
2. Marks of the Church
3. Visibility of the Church

Then what is their grounds for objecting to Bishop Fellay, following the principles of obedience laid out by St. Thomas Aquinas ( Obedience), trying to determine if a legitimate order or even desire has been manifested by the Pope with regards to regularization?

In a word, if the Pope sought to accept the SSPX "as we are" as Bishop Fellay cited Archbishop Lefebvre, why the fuss?

Earlier in this post I stated that: Bishop Williamson is "ascribing a belief to Archbishop Lefebvre".

That belief is Bishop Williamson's understandings of the terms:

1. Conciliar Church (His words to Cardinal Castrillon: We're not in the same Church)
2. Marks of the Church (SSPX vs Resistance Comparison of Ecclesiology) 
3. Visibility of the Church (ibid) 

Comparing Bishop Williamson et al's writings to the teaching of the Church shows, objectively, a marked deviation from the Teaching of the Church.  Fr. Pfeiffer's article on the 'Four Marks' is simply consistent with all of the other 'associates' in the 'resistance'.

The 'heresy' of the 'resistance' is focused on errors concerning the:

1. Dogma of the Four Marks,
2. Doctrine of the Visibility of the Church

as put forth by the 'resistance' clergy, inconsistent with Church Dogma and Doctrine as they either obscure, change, add or leave unsaid key elements of the Teachings.

This then, in my opinion, is the root cause for the "resistance", at least those that are not sedevacantist. They appear to believe that a canonical regularization "as we are" would result in a canonical union with the "conciliar church" and not the Catholic Church.

If I am incorrect in my assessment: Then why are the 'resistance' having such a problem?


I speculate that it is because they have simply become what they strove against.

For that reason I have attached a scanned copy of the opinion of Bishop Williamson's chart outlining the various classes of traditionalists in the nineties.

For the resistors, ponder carefully you opinions and where Bishop Williamson would have pigeon holed you in that era.

P^3

traditionalists, conservatives, sedevacantists a comparison +Williamson 1990's

[img]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW5pNp75kuX0UEAnoqzNeMYnVEN8z3tbHwCentc0VGF6rM7AHqDHeDfPN6UdHP7ETZ1TXX4fsDtUGDcnlgGm2vmfPEfZgl9eCvBSajmddnw6gfQKCrWbQV8uJdK6cMPldGKdtjALNpYTEx/s1600/scan0002.jpg[/img]

[img]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpDrjA8_nQvKFW9bFlL0nfBN4TXWLYImv1LaKiY1PYgHKjOsPbKAwcYIe3aJcHTQDPNv8QjejPf7R1NPPcqBtrTPZF3wnAZtdvdnPY05jGP7tnBdVsLZUdVZhMKLbTRush3_aJx2PenlZ/s1600/scan0001.jpg[/img]