The 'resistance' and its heresy

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:

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

What is meant by the term "conciliar church"?
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:

Conciliar Church
Marks of the Church
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:

Conciliar Church (His words to Cardinal Castrillon: We're not in the same Church)
Marks of the Church (SSPX vs Resistance Comparison of Ecclesiology)
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]

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

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...

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

+ 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

Schism

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...

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

+ 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...

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

+ 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.

Tradicat

Search This Blog