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

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

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

Catholic Culture - The Edgar Schein Model Analysis of the Pre and Post Conciliar Culture

+ JMJ So ... I was thinking ... I've used Edgar Schein's (RIP) organizational cultural model (link ) in my research ... why not apply it in a comparison between the Catholic Organizational Culture - PRE and POST Second Vatican Culture? Of course, this will be from my own perspective, I'm certain that others will think differently. 😁 Also, apologies for a rather long article. Graphic: https://mutomorro.com/edgar-scheins-culture-model/ Below is a quick mapping of the cultural factors that I could think of. Since the Church is vast and composed of millions of Souls, it is necessarily a limited cultural map. Yet, I think it will still be useful to assess what has changed since the Second Vatican Council. Additional Reading: 5 enduring management ideas from MIT Sloan’s Edgar Schein | MIT Sloan Artifacts Artifacts are tangible and observable aspects of the culture being examined. All organizations have them. Walmart has their Walmart chant, Charismatics have their spe

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit

+ JMJ Something that always and I do mean always causes me to cringe interiourly is when non-Trad Catholics use the words "Holy Spirit" instead of "Holy Ghost". First, this is a natural response because of long usage of "Holy Ghost" as soon as I hear the word "Holy" in a prayer, my brain automatically is prepped to hear "Ghost" afterwards. This creates a short period of interiour dissonance (discomfort). Now the question I would like to ponder today is whether or not there is a difference and whether or not there is a right way vs wrong way.

Tradicat

Search This Blog