Skip to main content

The "Resistance" and its problems ...

+
JMJ


Maybe the 'resistance' isn't founded on heresy.  Unfortunately, no 'resistor' that I have encountered online has provided explicit affirmation of the principles that I've discussed.

One "resistor" who did admit that the  principles are Catholic so he had to accept them later balked at Obedience with an excuse that he didn't 'trust' the Pope et al.  Now he is a home-aloner ala resistance.

It is strange how a conspiracy clouded mind can narrow the perspective to the point where people echo the modernists saying "St.Thomas never could have imagined this time, so we need to disregard X".  I surrounded that with quotes because that was actually posted in answer to my discussion on obedience as per St. Thomas.

There are a number of elements that I find telling in my contacts with 'resistors':
  1. They are selective in their application of principles .  It seems that the ends does justify the means for these people.
  2. They appear to have  strong bias towards trusting their own judgement, instead of following principles such St. Thomas Aquinas on Obedience.  
With Bishop Williamson's consecration of Fr. Faure, I encountered another 'resistor' who, when asked a direct question, launched off on all sorts of twigs that weren't relevant to the question at hand.


The thing I have noted is that when confronted by a hard 'fact', such as the lifting of the excommunication, they resort to twig arguments that are usually 'after the fact' - such as why didn't we hear of this in 2009?

Essentially, those with whom I have held these discussions refuse to face some of the hard questions. Such as why are the beliefs of the clergy of the resistance not consistent with the teaching of the Church on the Four Marks etc?

When confronted, instead of answering the inconsistency directly they introduce new items such as raising the principle of 'no canonical regularization prior to a doctrinal resolution' to an almost de-fide status.  As a consequence they shunt aside St. Thomas etc.

Oddy, they (Tony La Rosa) wrote the following:

It was not until February 2, 2012 that this principle was publicly made known to have changed.  During a sermon a St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Bishop Bernard Fellay said the following:

“We told them (i.e., Rome) very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things (i.e., Vatican II, etc.), then we are ready.”3

So the SSPX leadership was willing to become canonically regularized as long as Rome did not expect the SSPX to change from its current position.  However, this caused an uproar within the SSPX, including the other three SSPX Bishops...(Source)
I guess they didn't realize that Bishop Fellay was quoting Archbishop Lefebvre when he said: "Accept us as we are".

Oh well ... reality is a nasty thing to deal with.


When confronted with reality they have a few choices.  The 'resistors' that I've encountered all change their perception of the action.

The similarity to a delusional psychosis is stunning.


P^3



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Battle Joy

+ JMJ I was listening to a Cd of John Vennari on Battle Joy ( Recapture the Flag: Dedication and Battle Joy - by John Vennari ) and it really captures a key point that Catholics (Traditional and otherwise labelled) need to adopt. We should see this conflict as a chance to prove our mettle for our King and to earn our unending reward.  As veterans we'll be able to talk about the old battles in which we fought and the honour we gained in fighting for our King! Attached is a preview of course that, although secular, contains some of the elements of Battle Joy. P^3 https://www.coursera.org/learn/war/lecture/VDwfk/the-joy-of-battle

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...