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':

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.

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

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