+
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':
- They are selective in their application of principles . It seems that the ends does justify the means for these people.
- 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.
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:
I guess they didn't realize that Bishop Fellay was quoting Archbishop Lefebvre when he said: "Accept us as we are".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)
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
Post a Comment