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]

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

+ JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them. I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest. This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis? When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due. This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith. When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

+ JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa

Tradicat

Search This Blog