A Resistor's Response to 'Moderation'

+

JMJ

Over on Suscipedomine (a forum that has a working moderation framework) a 'resistor' has been given a warning by the Moderator (see Archer's note) and the rest of the forum told to not bait him.

What interests me is Gerard's response, which I have reproduced below with my thoughts.

P^3

Quote from: Archer on July 02, 2015, 06:59:52 PM

Gerard and other followers of the so-called Resistance: You've been harboring the same resentments and making the same unfounded claims for three or four years now, and still there has been no capitulation from the Society and no signs of a sell-out. Therefore, until there has been a new development with physical evidence, this conversation and ones like it are over.

For everyone else, please do not bait Gerard or other Resistance posters.

Gerard's responses are quoted first - followed by my comments ...

There is always a new development.  Most recently, the SSPX leaders have launched a volley against the Dominicans of Avrille.  But people will simply dismiss any controversies or noted errors in the logic of the attack.  (The Dominicans won't miss them, but their reply will be dismissed as "propaganda." )   

This is interesting, as the SSPX communique concerning the Dominicans of Avrille will be posted here after the series on the 'secret' conference.

But your assertions about the resistance are false and here's why:   There is both physical and circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that the SSPX is being lead towards a similar situation as all other reconciled groups.  (I'm surprised the IBP hasn't already solved the crisis in the Church, they got everything Bp. Fellay has asked for. ) 

This is based on a mixture of inconsistent 'facts'.  First, I am not aware of the any 'reconciled' (I prefer to use the work 'regularized' Traditional group having a Personal Prelature type of structure. I am not aware of any of them not compromising on the principles to which the SSPX adheres. I am also aware that the SSPX is following the principle of obedience as noted here and here.

For your assertion to be true, in no particular order, none of these things can have actually happened: 

That only depends on what actually is my assertion.  My assertion is that the 'resistance' has departed from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre on two key points:

1. Principle of obedience
2. Understanding of the phrase 'conciliar Church'

That the resistance is unable to reconcile these principles to their 'position' is understandable. Because to admit the rational conclusions that I have put forward undermines their entire thought structure.  In short, they would have to admit that they were wrong ... there has been no 'compromise'.

1) There has been documented capitulation from the SSPX, cited from SSPX sources on the fight for tradition.  (the "new direction" of Angelus press going happy-clappy ) 

Here the question is it a fight for tradition or a fight for the Church?  That the Angelus has broadened its editorial approach is unquestioned.  Is it bad?  Frankly, I am pleased that it is no longer only about the bad things that are happening (which are happening at an increasing rate) but also about what Archbishop Lefebvre noted was necessary to survive this crisis: fostering the practice of virtue.  This comes from a broad view of the Church and placing this crisis in its proper context.

2) Bishop Fellay signed a preamble that had no requirement or capitulation or even a sense of a turnaround from Rome on the Conciliar policies.  (what he used to call "the zoo" or Campos' blueprint) 

Ok let's be certain about something ... Bishop Fellay wrote the preamble and requiring Rome to turnaround is simply a malformed version of 'no regularization without a doctrinal agreement'. This preamble was based on that written by Archbishop Lefebvre (which will also appear here in a few days).  Last thought, the 'sense of a turnaround ... Conciliar policies'.  From my perspective admitting that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated is a HUGE turnaround.

3) Fr. Pfluger admitted publicly that Bp. Fellay had abandoned that SSPX principle and he used as a justification, one of the Campos arguments that Bp. Fellay had previously rebutted.  

At least Gerard admits that this was an SSPX principle set by the 2006 Chapter.  What he neglects (again) to mention is why they did this: Obedience.

4) The six conditions of the GC which have been analyzed and presented and the critiques have not been rebutted, but instead smeared.  

First of all it is not essential to rebut every little thing a critic of the SSPX says. Second, it has been rebutted - here.

5) There is a published book about the secretive GREC meetings.  

There are lots of things going on, because the SSPX believes that the organization lead by Pope Francis is the Catholic Church.  So, not being schismatic, they have interactions in order to help members of the Church.

6) The scrubbing of the SSPX websites of articles critical of Pope Benedict XVI's theology and articles defending the Church from anti-Catholic Jewish groups.  

Interesting, let's deal with the second first. After the 'Bishop Williamson' era and where it was heading, I for one am pleased that they have removed that from the websites. Why? Because it really is a conspiracy theory that, when taken to its natural end, would result in a situation similar to that which happened after Bishop Williamson couldn't keep his mouth shut in front of a camera.

Now for the first, hey if the Pope Emeritus is likewise backing away and correcting his previous statements - then is it not right to remove those that are corrected?  Also, is it possible that taken in a broader perspective that the statements weren't actually wrong? Given the Pope bashing that happens, perhaps the SSPX needed to foster more respect for the Vicar of Christ. Something to consider.

7) Numerous priests like never before have been expelled or resigned, not for heterodoxy, but rather for speaking out against the "new direction" of the leadership.  

Well, that's interesting.  I think that they are being expelled for sede-vacantism (at least one case), disobedience.  Also if they adhere to the 'resistance' position on the 'conciliar Church' etc - then it is natural that they will not be at ease when their cultural assumptions are challenged.

8- I've quoted from SSPX sources, bishop Fellay being against Campos, then using Campos' very same reasoning to pursue his "new direction."  

Actually, I disagree with this because Campos compromised.

9) Bishop Fellay now reports to the modernist CDF under Mueller for specific cases involving SSPX priests, which no SG before ever did. (Can the CDF overturn his ruling?) 

If Bishop Fellay is a judge of first instance, then of course there is a second instance (appeal) court.  After all that's how a hierarchy works!

10- Other traditional non-SSPX resistance outlets have noted the muted or non-criticism of outrageous conciliar acts coming from Rome.  (Michael Matt of the Remnant doing so publicly)  

What exactly did Michael Matt say?  Anyway, that the SSPX isn't responding as the 'resistance' would, is obvious, they aren't the 'resistance'.  They will respond when they deem it necessary because it isn't their prime focus to say 'how bad it is' but to preserve the priesthood and help the Church rediscover Her lifeblood.

That's a helluva lot for you to have the temerity to claim that the resistance is "unfounded."  And none of that FACTUAL INFORMATION is exclusive to or opinion pieces of "resistance" supporters.

As noted, this is interesting 'factual' information, but the conclusions are skewed based on the selection of 'facts' (read confirmation bias) .

Nor can any of those objective observable quantifiable facts and phenoma be called "resentments."   

The next few paragraphs are interesting because it appears that the moderation comment struck a nerve.  I will note that if Gerard is unable to counter anything that dis-confirms his beliefs, it is likely he will disengage and participate in a forum where he can obtain confirmation of his beliefs.

I'm not going to sit idly by and let you give a gentle tap on the wrist to the lunatic that thinks he wants to get into a fist fight with me and then have you make a series of indefensible slurs against my position. 

 It seems that Gerard doesn't like being told to cease and desist (see Archer's comments) and takes it personally.  I can think of only one person who lost patience with Gerard and he received a one day ban according with the forum rules.  Regarding 'slurs against [his] position', really I think that Gerard didn't read the whole moderation comment.  Specifically the part about 'capitulation' and 'sell-out'.

And ban me if you want. I was invited here when the site was set up, and if I'm not "progressive" enough now and resented for it, I understand that, you want be affiliated with Bp. Fellay's "new direction."  

 Well, I was invited to a 'resistance' site and the first time I logged in, I was banned in 20 minutes (my personal best) - even before I had finished writing my first post.  I have likewise been banned for simply arguing against the 'resistance' narrative.

I know my value and I know the truth of what I've written. ( I wouldn't bother if I just wanted to rant irrationally, like the trends among younger trads I've observed. )
If you want a closed club of self-deluding sycophants with no one challenging the "internal dynamism"  just let me know.  

 Ok, now this 'I know my value and I know the truth of what I've written' is a little bit much.  The point is that reasoned debate is one thing, but to accuse the forum of being 'self-deluding sycophants' is a bit much.  Secondly, I've been banned from a number of resistance forums so this accusation is likewise the pot calling the stove black.  SD has a good moderation policy and if a poster doesn't like it, no one is forcing them to hang around.

I'll take my participation somewhere else and we'll all know that honest debate and clear thinking is not welcomed here but only shallow cult of personality fawning over Bishop Fellay no matter what he decides to do.  

I don't shrink from honest debate, however, I do know that if I'm arguing with a person who is not thinking rationally, then it is best to desist. Otherwise, the more their irrational beliefs are challenged, the stronger they will adhere to them. 

Kind of like trying to pull a nail out of a board by hitting it on the head with the hammer of reality.

Reality: SSPX has not compromised.

Resistance Belief (one of many conspiracy theories): A secret deal has already been reached ... there's an unsigned deal ...

Pray because there's probably going to be a much more collateral damage in the months to come.

P^2