Resistance Round-Up for the Month

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

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ Is a Traditional Catholic who abandons the doctrine of the Catholic Church - are they truly worthy of the name of Catholic? This is why it is important to understand Catholic Doctrine so we don't knowingly abandon it! This is a lecture provided by Dr. Lamont that touches on the topic of obedience. Obedience is one key to emerging from this crisis. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May 2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I By John Lamont (Lecture given in New York on Friday, April 4, 2014)

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...

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...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

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...

Tradicat

Search This Blog