+
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). EC420What 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:
Whereas, the SSPX has always seen it like this:
That's enough for today ...
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment