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:

True the 'resistance' didn't 'compromise with Rome' - it simply compromised Catholic Teaching. They have set aside the doctrines of the:

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.
Actually, that is not what the SSPX states was their purpose.

“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).
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.

Bishop Williamson was 'exiled' in England for, among other reasons, he was persona non-grata in a number of other countries.

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.
His expulsion was brought about by his own actions. Simply put: disobedience to a lawful command.

Continuing his EC's when told to cease and desist,
Traveling to South America to perform confirmations, breaking a number of statues of the SSPX.

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.

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.
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:

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)
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!

There is only one group that has made 'deceptions, denials, and outright lies' - the members of the 'resistance'. They:

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?
Deny the doctrines of the Church (ie obedience and the constitution of the Church)
Lie about the vows taken at the consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Sorry Matthew, but the truth was always there.

The SSPX is the same as it was when founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
That they move with serenity, quietly continuing the work is not a fault.
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

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

+ JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them. I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest. This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis? When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due. This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith. When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot

Thirty Days Prayer to Our Lady -

+ JMJ Providence has cast this prayer in my path twice in the last week. I decided to post it here in order to have a copy handy. P^3 Prayer Penance Patience Source Intro Prayer With the condition of affairs in the cultural, political and physical world in a state of disarray we enter Lent - Ash Wednesday - February 25th - 2004 - more compelled then ever to pursue, diligently and faithfully, our personal road to holiness. It is a long, difficult path each of us treads, however, we do know the journey can be sweeter and more blessed if we travel it with others. Jesus has told us: "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with you." And there are many other biblical passages, as well, that urge us to love and help one another. A 'Thirty Day Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary ' was said by many Catholics during troubled times in their lives up until Vatican II. While looking through old stored away boxes, I came across a small white prayer b

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

+ JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa

Tradicat

Search This Blog