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...

Comparison of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

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

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

+ 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...

Magisterium and Levels of Assent

+ JMJ Understanding the levels of assent to be given to the teachings of the Church is a critical success factor in walking the knife's edge during this crisis of the Church. The levels of assent are generally associated with the theological grades of certainty, which are not surprisingly mirrored by the censures for contravening the teachings of the various levels.

Tradicat

Search This Blog