Tradicat

+ JMJ Based on previous discussions, I am confident that a number of people would present objections to some of the statements that I made in this article. Here are the ones that I have anticipated and my repsonse. Part 1 P^3

+ JMJ The final section of the conference addresses another core 'resistance' tenet: Relations with Conciliar Rome: can a practical agreement be considered without a doctrinal agreement? In this section, the author pulls out all the stops and exposes further the differences between their thoughts at that of the SSPX.

+ JMJ The next accusation that the author levels against the SSPX is: Silence regarding the Roman scandals Again, in the midst of the discussions with Rome the Pope held Assisi III and Bishop Fellay authorized Fr. Regis de Cacqueray to publish an article concerning the scandal of the event ( courtesy of SSPX.org ). The real issue is not that the SSPX doesn't warn of the various issues and scandals. Just that they don't respond in the way that the 'author' would like.

+ JMJ The author of the conference makes the following claim: The distinction between "eternal Rome" and "the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies" - what was the basis of Archbishop Lefebvre's rules of engagement has been obliterated. In my opinion this is a core aspect of the 'resistance' belief system.  The problem is that the facts belie a different story than what the author claims changed in February 2013 with Fr. Gleize's article.

+ JMJ Introduction to the 'Private Conference' Interestingly at the end of the introduction are the following words: Firstly, let us say that this is not for us to judge people and to impute motives. Above all, what is needed is to try to analyze the situation objectively based on facts and official documents. Given my encounters with "resistors", I expect to find a vary narrow selection official documents used to support what they perceive as facts in order to judge people and impute motives.

+ JMJ Background I have in my possession a 'private conference not to be put on the internet' titled: How to see clearly through the current situation of Tradition?  According to their website, it was delivered by a Monk of Avrille November 15, 2014. My intention in reviewing this document is to determine if it is consistent with my earlier observations of the issues I noted in the 'resistance' (see links below). Specifically, that the 'resistance' believes that the 'conciliar Church' is a separate organization that is parallel to the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic Church.

+JMJ + I just noticed that Louie Verrechio is having difficulty both understanding how to navigate the crisis and the actions of the SSPX.  First principle for survival is that you don't get to believe a particular belief because you want it to be true. Second principle is that you cannot ignore the other teachings of the Catholic Church in order to believe what you want to believe.  The Catholic Church is recognized by the four marks. See this article for some clarity. So don't be selfish and believe what you want to believe, but believe what is true, believe what the Church teaches without contradicting any of the Teachings.  P^3 PS. When a post starts with +JMJ+, it was written using the mobile blogger app. Hence there will be formatting and spellcheck issues. ;-)

+ JMJ The final section of the conference addresses another core 'resistance' tenet: Relations with Conciliar Rome: can a practical agreement be considered without a doctrinal agreement? In this section, the author pulls out all the stops and exposes further the differences between their thoughts at that of the SSPX.

+ JMJ The next accusation that the author levels against the SSPX is: Silence regarding the Roman scandals Again, in the midst of the discussions with Rome the Pope held Assisi III and Bishop Fellay authorized Fr. Regis de Cacqueray to publish an article concerning the scandal of the event ( courtesy of SSPX.org ). The real issue is not that the SSPX doesn't warn of the various issues and scandals. Just that they don't respond in the way that the 'author' would like.

+ JMJ The author of the conference makes the following claim: The distinction between "eternal Rome" and "the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies" - what was the basis of Archbishop Lefebvre's rules of engagement has been obliterated. In my opinion this is a core aspect of the 'resistance' belief system.  The problem is that the facts belie a different story than what the author claims changed in February 2013 with Fr. Gleize's article.

+ JMJ Introduction to the 'Private Conference' Interestingly at the end of the introduction are the following words: Firstly, let us say that this is not for us to judge people and to impute motives. Above all, what is needed is to try to analyze the situation objectively based on facts and official documents. Given my encounters with "resistors", I expect to find a vary narrow selection official documents used to support what they perceive as facts in order to judge people and impute motives.

+ JMJ Background I have in my possession a 'private conference not to be put on the internet' titled: How to see clearly through the current situation of Tradition?  According to their website, it was delivered by a Monk of Avrille November 15, 2014. My intention in reviewing this document is to determine if it is consistent with my earlier observations of the issues I noted in the 'resistance' (see links below). Specifically, that the 'resistance' believes that the 'conciliar Church' is a separate organization that is parallel to the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic Church.

+ JMJ Just sharing some diagrams that I created for an upcoming article. SSPX perspective on the present state of the Catholic Church:  'Resistance perspective on the present state of the Catholic Church: P^3

Has the SSPX Strayed from the Teaching of the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre? -A Layman's Thoughts- There have been a lot of wild accusations made about the SSPX and in particular Bishop Fellay. The chief of these is that the SSPX has abandoned the principles set down by Archbishop Lefebvre. This is a serious accusation as principles are the guides used to aid in decision making.  Bad principles will lead to bad decisions. One of the key principles that guides the SSPX happens to be an article in the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the Holy, Catholic, Church". This article is so important that the authors of the Catechism of Trent wrote: Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy, so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed, let pastors use every diligence that the faithful, having known this mystery and guarded against the wiles of Satan, may persevere in the true faith. Words tha...

Further thoughts on the implications of the term 'conciliar Church'.  As noted in my earlier article  , the 'resistance' appears to understand the term as a completely separate entity - with its own hierarchy etc. If that were true, then there would be new implications. Which 'church' gave the official approval for the founding of the SSPX?  The One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church or the 'Conciliar Church'? The following article provides a good background of the issue that the 'resistance' needs to reconsider in their accusation that the SSPX has a malformed understanding of Church ecclesiology. Courtesy of Credidimus Caritati Among the marginal environments of Tradition, there are some people who are attempting to twist the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre, and attempt to state that the "Conciliar Church" should be considered as an independent structure, independent from the Catholic Church as founded by Our Lord. ...

Another excellent link provided by a reader. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Fr. Peter Scott, June 2005 Source Q. Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church? The term "conciliar" is an adjective that has long been used to describe those things that relate to the Second Vatican Council, such as the documents, commissions, or novel teachings such as Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. The question raises the objection as to whether this adjective can be used to describe the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.

+ JMJ Based on previous discussions, I am confident that a number of people would present objections to some of the statements that I made in this article. Here are the ones that I have anticipated and my repsonse. Part 1 P^3

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

While the label "conciliar Church" has it uses, it is important to avoid its misuses. One common misuse results in people thinking that Traditionalist are the Church and that all 'modern' Catholics are outside the Church. This logically leads them into a contradiction of the first principle noted in this post . The SSPX has had a number of good articles clarifying the use of the phrase both by Archbishop Lefebvre as well as by the SSPX in general. Reproduced below is a DICI article by Fr. Gleize, another article can be found here  (scroll down to the second article..