+
JMJ
As it is rather timely, here's another 'resistance' post.
The 'resistance' blog 'tradcatknight' (TCK) has posted an answer to some 'critics' that bears examination as it manifests a number of the 'resistance' assumptions. While I have discussed some core assumptions in this series, TCK has demonstrated the diversity of opinions within the 'resistance' that would fall into Old Bishop Williamsons 'sedevacantist' category.
Here are some key points that I picked out:
TCK: You are Sedevacantists- No, TradCatKnight nor the Resistance are sedevacantists.I have heard this 'claim' from various 'resistors' in the past. It will be interesting to see if TCK's ideas are consistent with what Old Bishop Williamson claimed was a sedevacantist position.
TCK: We maintain Vatican II was not Catholic, periodThis is interesting on a number of levels. First of all, it was convoked by a Catholic Pope, Catholic Bishops participated in it, and it was closed by a Catholic Pope. Seems to establish the Dogmatic Fact that V2 was, sadly, an Ecumenical Council.
More importantly, from TCK's perspective, we have this tidbit from the Old Bishop Williamson:
Vatican II was illegimate from the very beginning. It was not a Catholic Council in any way at all.This seems to be identical to TCK's claim that 'Vatican II was not Catholic, period'. Old Bishop Williamson classified this as the 'Extreme' sedevacantist position. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Me thinks he doth protest too much.
TCK: it is the pastoral implementation of the Novus Ordo religion which soon ends in the formal schism (invalid excathedra uniting all humanity/religions) ... Can everyone now see that connection between that pastoral teaching and the soon coming FORMAL invalid excathedra which will essentially restate the SAME THING.
This appears to be nothing more than a 'conspiracy' theory. Fundamentally, the Pope can't be in schism from the Church because he is part of the mark of unity.
TCK: We have not started another Church we are essentially what remains "of the Church" because the Conciliar/Vatican II church is a counterfeit NewChurch forewarned even by approved mystics.This reminds me of something I read in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
For in after ages there would not be wanting wicked men who, like the ape that would fain pass for a man, would claim that they alone were Catholics, and with no less impiety than effrontery assert that with them alone is the Catholic Church." Catechism of TrentNeed to be careful about the use of the work 'NewChurch' - because the Four Marks need to exist somewhere and the Pope is part of the mark of Unity (Oneness).
TCK: Catholics MUST separate themselves from heresy let alone a WHOLE NEW RELIGION which is orientated towards man.This is interesting in that it represents a common thread amongst the 'resistors'. The problem this creates is how to ensure that they don't commit the sin of schism by denying communion with other Catholics not to mention the refusal of submission to a legitimate command by the Pope.
TCK: Why not follow SSPX under Bishop Fellay then they are following what Archbishop Lefebvre taught? They are absolutely not following what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. ... The Neo-SSPX follows Michael Matt (pseudo traditionalist) and the Remnants position not Archbishop Lefebvre. ... What Lefebvre truly taught is only being maintained in the Resistance. ... Well then you are a 'practical sedevacantist" in theory then! And? so what? That was Archbishop Lefebvres true position.This is a mantra of the 'resistance', however, I've already discussed this issue in this article. I refuse to believe that the Archbishop would abandon Catholic Dogma's, Doctrines and Principles like the 'resistance'.
TCK: To be in "full communion" with Modernist/heretical Rome is NOT a GOOD THING ... Objectively speaking one cannot be Catholic and follow Vatican II and therefore that is the dilemma. Appear to be Catholic and turn our backs on Tradition and ultimately God or stand up in TRUE RESISTANCE for Tradition and thus ultimately please God. ... In order to be considered in the Church you must accept Vatican II. YES and that is our problem because Catholics cannot accept Vatican II and thus must remain on the "outside" of those buildings until Modernist Rome converts (which the coming chastisements will do). Those following Vatican II are "Catholic" only in name they do not have the Catholic Apostolic Faith and Gospel which may cost them their souls unfortunately.Inside this mess, it appears that TCK does not believe that the organization under the leadership of Pope Francis is the Mystical Body of Christ ie the Catholic Church. Perhaps he ascribes to the model illustrated below, which creates other problems as it impinges upon the visibility of the Catholic Church.
But once a person accepts an altered (ie heretical) interpretation of the Four Marks of the Church, re-imagining the doctrine of the Visibility of the Church is a simple matter.
Much of what TCK discusses appears to be founded on the belief that the Second Vatican Council explicitly taught heresy in the first degree. This creates a few problems such as:
- Archbishop Lefebvre signed every document of V2. Note he did not vote placeat for a number, but in the end he did sign all of them.
- Indefectibility of the Church (a doctrine not dogma) should have prevented this from occuring if heresy in the first degree was involved.
- Material Heresy does not exclude a Catholic from the Church. As V2 is not explicitly Heretical (rupture with doctrine is not the same as rupture with dogma) they are still Catholic - until they either separate themselves from the Church or ignore canonical
So TCK is consistent with some of the prevalent 'resistance' mantras and adds his own concerning V2 etc. While he does claim to not be a 'sedevacantist' he holds a position that Old Bishop Williamson labelled as extreme sedevacantist.
Of course, this isn't at all consistent with the thought or path of Archbishop Lefebvre because it isn't consistent with Church Dogma, Doctrine and Principles.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment