Skip to main content

Resistance Round-Up for the Month

Image
By
+
JMJ

I've decided that posting only periodically on the 'Resistance' is a better course instead of jumping on every statement that they make.  The reason is that, since they produce a fair number of statements that contradict or mislead, I would be constantly talking about them.


So here's this month's compilation.  Starting with Bishop Williamson's EC420, in which he produces a fair muddling of doctrine and personal opinion.
Take Archbishop Lefebvre’s own case. Firstly, it was very important to him that the Statutes of the original SSPX were officially approved by the diocesan bishop of Geneva, Lausanne and Fribourg. Secondly, for instance, if a priest of the SSPX wanted to quit the SSPX, to right or to left, the Archbishop had no power to stop him or to punish him except by having nothing more to do with him. And if that priest departed towards the Novus Ordo Church, he was often greeted, as one can imagine, with open arms. The SSPX under Bishop Fellay has more and more wanted to be normal and has pretended it is normal, but actually it is a weak structure insofar as it has never had any jurisdiction more than supplied (this is one reason why Bishop Fellay so wants to be re-integrated into the mainstream Church). EC420
What erroneous conclusions would be that the Superior General of the SSPX has no authority over the members of the SSPX.  That would be jumping over a large number of faulty premises to arrive at that conclusion.

The truth is that the SSPX was canonically erected and, the SSPX maintains, illicitly suppressed in violation of the laws of the Church.  Any priest that wants to 'leave' the SSPX is able to do so, as like wise (despite Bishop Williamson's protests to the contrary) the Superior General has the power and authority to expel members from the SSPX.

The key point is that Bishop Williamson has embedded his own opinion as to the motivations for the SSPX being willing to accept a canonical regularization.  Bishop Williamson (following FUD) implies that the SSPX is desperately seeking a regularization of its own accord. Whereas the reality is that Rome instigated the discussions etc.  As Bishop Williamson used to say: Lies, Lies, Lies. However, in this case it is innuendo and suspicion and doubts.

The second item that I'd like to point out is a confirmation of my conclusion that the 'resistance' is founded upon doctrinal heresy concerning the Church.  The latest issue of the 'recusant', a UK resistance newsletter, contains the following statement:
Bishop Fellay said clearly, on 20th December at the seminary in La Reja: “The official Church is the visible church, it is the Catholic Church, full stop.” All who dare contradict this peremptory judgement will be destroyed and crushed one way or another. But don’t worry, we can rest easy: nothing has been signed! 
The statement by Bishop Fellay is a 'peremptory judgement'?

Well, if he is stating Catholic Doctrine and 'resistors' want to deny it - then I think he is justified in excluding those people from the chapels of the SSPX.

Why?

Because effectively they are heretics and are undermining the work of the SSPX in the salvation of souls.

I discussed briefly the visibility of the Church here and it would behoove all Catholics to understand the difference between rhetorical devices and doctrine when examining the talks of Archbishop Lefevre.

Most resistors that I have encountered have a very hard time swallowing the FACT that the Church of Christ is the organization under the leadership of Pope Francis.

This 'editorial' is just further evidence to supports my conclusion that the resistance sees the Church like this:
This viewpoint creates more problems than it solves. Specifically, how is a person to recognize the Church of Christ?


Whereas, the SSPX has always seen it like this:
If the 'resistor' thesis is a result of the lack of canonical status within the Church, then I see the salvation of souls being in jeopardy if the situation is prolonged by any action of the SSPX.  If the Pope were to issue a no-compromise solution (see six conditions) then the SSPX should (with due prudence) accept such a solution in order to prevent more deluded souls from being lost in the fog of war like the resistors.

That's enough for today ...

P^3





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
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...
8 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

By
+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

By
 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...
Post a Comment
Read more