Skip to main content

Perspective of the 'resistors'

+
JMJ

I have a confession to make ... I'm a lurker.

Periodically, I will do searches to see what's happening in reference to the SSPX as what affects them ultimately affects myself and those dear to me.

Recently I came across the following exchange on a 'resistance' forum:
knish said: If it's unilateral, I couldn't see why anyone would oppose it. I know MANY here disagree, but I really don't get the argument. To be honest, I believe this is a schismatic attitude.

In reply the forum owner wrote:
matthew said: *sigh*
I'll repeat myself here, since I've said it before.
Unilateral would be if the Pope suddenly approved of Bishop Williamson or the Resistance. That is to say: one-sided. Unilateral comes from the Latin unus (one) and latus, lateris (side).

Because the Resistance hasn't made any compromises with Rome (1) -- they are just doing their thing. If the Pope granted them canonical recognition, it would be out of left field.

But in the case of the SSPX, it's too late for unilateral anything, since Bishop Fellay's SSPX has already transformed itself from the core to be another FSSP(2). They founded GREC for precisely this purpose (re-unification)(3). They have gone so far as to exile 25% of their bishops to make themselves more attractive to Rome(4). They have made concessions PRE-DEAL instead of after the deal(5), which would normally be expected.

Also, let's not ignore the fact that Bishop Fellay has personally been in negotiations with Rome for years.(6) All deception, denials, and outright LIES aside.(7)

It's sneaky, I'll give them that. They make all these changes, trying to convince the Faithful all the while that nothing has been changed.(8) Then when they receive their payment (the deal), they will shout "Unilateral deal! We have to accept it! We're Catholics after all!"

Uh...no. It wasn't unilateral. It was bi-lateral. There was a compromise, a two-sided deal, with plenty of give-and-take. They gave, and Rome took.
I'll take the time to go through this point by point:

  1.  True the 'resistance' didn't 'compromise with Rome' - it simply compromised Catholic Teaching. They have set aside the doctrines of the:
    1. Obedience
    2. Constitution of the Church
  2. The core of the FSSP is the compromise made in 1988.  For those with short memories: They had to accept the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass.  To say that these elements have been compromised is delusional.
  3. Actually, that is not what the SSPX states was their purpose.
    1. “The Society of Saint Pius X considers that the solution to the crisis cannot skimp on a rigorous clarification of the doctrinal questions in dispute, for it does not believe in the efficacy of medications that treat only the symptoms and not the cause” (see link for more).
    2. While the 'resistors' scream bloody murder, they refuse to hear the other side and further they ignore the possibility that other people in GREC may have had other purposes - but - it is a fallacy to jump to the assumption that the SSPX has the same intention.
  4. Bishop Williamson was 'exiled' in England for, among other reasons, he was persona non-grata in a number of other countries.  
    1. The reasons for his exile, as when he was banned from entry to Canada for a number of years, was that he holds opinions dogmatically. In the promotion of these opinions he is unable to exercise prudence and restrain himself.  
    2. His expulsion was brought about by his own actions. Simply put: disobedience to a lawful command.
      1. Continuing his EC's when told to cease and desist,
      2. Traveling to South America to perform confirmations, breaking a number of statues of the SSPX.
    3. If a person will not abide by the authority, then the authority has no other recourse than the expel the offender for the greater good of the community.
  5. Concessions - like what?  As usual, there are huge nameless 'concessions' made and yet they remain nameless. Seriously, if the 'resistance' wants to be taken seriously, they should find something serious to talk about.
  6. Yes it is a fact that Bishop Fellay has been involved in relations with Rome for all theses years.  Who did you think would be involved?  Fr. Pfeiffer?  Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear who would be in charge of discussions with Rome when they restarted:
    1. The one who will therefore have responsibility, as a matter of principle, for relations with Rome when I am gone will be the Superior General of the Society, Father Schmidberger, who still has six years of leadership before him. He is the one who will, eventually, maintain contacts with Rome from now on, in order to continue the discussions, if these discussions go on, or if contact is kept, which is unlikely for some time, because in L'Osservatore Romano a large headline will say, 'Schism of Abp. Lefebvre,' 'Excommunication'... (Source: Rorate)
    2. So it is ludicrous to assert some malicious intent because Bishop Fellay as been in 'negotiations' for all these years.  As the Americans say: Duh!
  7. There is only one group that has made 'deceptions, denials, and outright lies' - the members of the 'resistance'.  They:
    1. Deceive people by spreading FUD in the form of false rumours and leaking private documents that only serve their purporse.  For example: the letter of the 3 bishops was leaked, but not the full exchange before and after. Hello - can you say confirmation bias?
    2. Deny the doctrines of the Church (ie obedience and the constitution of the Church)
    3. Lie about the vows taken at the consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre.
  8. Sorry Matthew, but the truth was always there. 
    1. The SSPX is the same as it was when founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. 
    2. That they move with serenity, quietly continuing the work is not a fault.  
    3. Shouting down the opponents from YouTube videos is simply bringing a knife to a gun fight. The 'resistance' doesn't have a theological leg to stand on - otherwise they would still be in the SSPX.
In any case, we should pray for the 'resistors' because they are caught in a trap of their own making, conspiracy theories and a distrust of authority being chief elements.

Resistors are for the Resistors (Sorry Prof. Lewis)


P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ Interestingly the complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council (without reservations) is required of the SSPX. Just when people are starting to wonder how it came to this! Courtesy of Rorate Caeli P^3

A Look Back: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976

 + JMJ  Looking back is important to understand why we are where we are in this crisis. Courtesy of RemnantNewsPaper  P^3 FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLINE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976 Written by  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Introduction by Michael J. Matt More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church. On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered ...

Of the Church and the Pope - Fr. Calmel O.P.

+ JMJ Once again, looking back to see if the 'Traditional Catholics' in the early days of this crisis of the Church had a sufficient view to realize the roots of the crisis. The root: The Pope Hence when the Pope is 'righted' the Church will be 'righted'. P^3 Courtesy of SSPXasia Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. This essay by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75) helps us in these difficult times to preserve our love of the Church. More than 30 years after its first publication, this article retains all its relevance, so much so that it even seems to have been written for our time, in which the crisis in the Church deepens at an unprecedented pace. This essay will help the reader to think clearly, keep the Faith, and maintain serenity in the troubled times we are navigating. “My country has hurt m e,”wrote a young poet in 1944 during the purge 1 when the head of state [Charles De Gaulle] implacably pursued the sinister job that had been in the wo...

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...

Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations - Courtesy of SSPX.org

+ JMJ In the blogosphere there are number of responses to this crisis in the Catholic Church that lead to conclusions that run counter to Catholic Doctrine and Dogmas - if taken to their logical conclusion. The validity of the New Rite of Episcopal consecrations is one such hotspot within more extreme sections of the 'traditionalist' culture. Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations Courtesy of SSPX.org Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid Introduction This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid. Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the ordination of bishops was promulg...