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

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.