+
JMJ
In contrast with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX's principled resistance to the novelties of and emanating from the Second Vatican Council we have the 'resistance'.
They believe that the 'SSPX' has gone soft. That is a nice cosy ambiguous phrase. That the SSPX has left aside the anger of the 80's and 90's is not in question. That this represents a 'doctrinal' shift is ludicrous.
There are two key principles that the 'resistance' has transgressed.
First is obedience to ones religious superior.
For example, the statutes of the SSPX state that a priest leaving one district and entering another needs to obtain the permission of both district superiors. This Bishop Williamson neglected to do and represented the last straw.
The same can be said for almost every one of the 'resistor' priests, except for the sedevacantist ones.
This by the way is a resistor:
The second principle is that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and therefore is Bishop Fellay's (and Bishop Williamson's) superior. If the Pope calls, the SSPX goes, if the Pope issues a legitimate command, then there is a necessity to obey. Irregardless of the portents of doom, if there is no evident immediate or proximate occasion of sin (following the virtue of prudence) then there is an obligation to place our trust in God and submit.
However, that was not to the liking of the various resistors who, I have concluded, have a very very strong confirmation bias (read: Fr. Pfeiffer at least).
I predicted a number of years ago (2012) that the 'resistance' would go through a particular pattern that I've seen with another priest who went rogue. Interestingly, he was also formed under the auspices of Bishop Williamson. In essence, when he can't get his way, like a hireling, he will abandon those who supported him.
That is what is happening right now as the 'resistance' splits.
I pray that the laity will realize the errors of their ways, but I do not wish for them to bring back their erroneous opinions - that is poison.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment