Sunday, March 29, 2015

Of Apples and Trees - Updated 2


Updates at the end of the article ...

I've recently been accused of mis-interpreting Bishop Williamson and 'jumping in the middle' of his EC354.

Specifically this portion contains an error - can you pick it out?
Thus where Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly that the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay (Superior General since 1994) and Fr Nicholas Pfluger (First Assistant since 2006) insist today that there can only be one Church, and so the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Naturally then, where the Archbishop kept the SSPX at a safe distance from the Conciliar Church, Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger want to abolish that distance and bring the SSPX back within that Church which is Conciliar. And neither Bishop Fellay nor Fr Pfluger will feel Catholic until they have achieved that end.

The first is that Bishop Williamson is ascribing a belief to Archbishop Lefebvre.  This is simply one of the tactics used - to ascribe to another a belief that he (Bishop Williamson) wishes to impart upon his readers.

"La Resistance" and monsters under the bed ...


At this point in the lifecycle (really a type of death spiral) of the 'resistance', I think it is opportune to sit back, sip a little brandy and ponder what it is that is causing their irrational state of reasoning.

The first thing to acknowledge is that the alleged crisis within the SSPX exists between the ears of various former SSPX Bishop, Priests, associated religious and various laity.

The reality is this:
  1. Since 2000, when Rome showed a renewed interest in the SSPX, there have been a small number who have been screaming dire warnings of "betrayal", "sellout" and "compromise". (Note that this is now a 15 year old conspiracy theory.)
  2. The loose association of bishop and priests is largely made up of those who were either expelled in the course of the dozen years or left the Society during the intervening twelve years.  The latest batch are just late comers.
  3. No sellout or compromise has been made. The SSPX remains in a canonically irregular state because they want to be accepted "as they are".
What conclusion can we reach from this first point?

That their resistance is irrational and perhaps even delusional.

Among other aspects, I believe that one facet of this delusion is fear.

So what are the members of the 'resistance' afraid of?

I think some of them fear that the Church of Christ that they see (hint: the one united to the Successor of Peter) actually IS the Mystical Body of Christ.

So, like the Apostles in Gethsemane, when the traitor(s) approach and OLJC says to 'put up thy sword' (hint: God knows how He will solve this crisis), ... they flee.

Pray for them, because if they don't repent and swallow their pride, they will follow the example of Judas and commit spiritual suicide.


Saturday, March 28, 2015

Bishop Williamson continues to trod down a path remarkably different than Archbishop Lefebvre's


As long anticipated, Bishop Williamson has finally put forth his foot to trod yet another step off the path set for the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre.

He has consecrated a Bishop and hinted that this was but a test before he turns on the 'bishop mill'.   I suspect that Bishop Williamson's decision will, as in the salt-mill legend, sink the boat of the resistance.


Because now instead of a loose association of priests (and one bishop), it is quite possible that the 'resistance' will now devolve into a loose association of 'bishops' (and one priest) and soon there-after a new variant of the sede-vacantists/schismatics will fully take hold.  After all it is Bishop Williamson who said, in answer to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, we are not part of the same Church.  He is simply following his principles to their logical end.

The following three SSPX articles provide a counter-point to the 'rationale' provided by Bishop Williamson et al.

While I am confident that the 'died in the wool' (pun intended) 'resistors' will shunt the perspective of the SSPX aside, just as they cast aside Catholic Teaching (see here and here), there is still hope for those who as merely confused by the conspiracy theories uttered by the 'resistance'.

This issue with Bishop Williamson et al is, at the root, theological error (ie at least a lesser degree of heresy), compacted with a hint of schism and a dash of conspiracy theory to add flavour.

It won't be too long before this concoction fully ripens.


Reality Check for 'La Resistance' - The Real Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Updated March 28, 2015


Update: I decided to include more text from the 1 and 2 year after the consecration interviews.  Here we have the 'recognized as we are' which was quoted by Bishop Fellay and oddly enough criticized by the 'resistance' (Odd that the resistance criticized Bishop Fellay for these words). The second aspect is the 'I did not wish to act in secret' - which shows a marked difference between Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Williamson et al had intended to keep the consecration of Fr. Faure a secret.  So ... who is really following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre?  Not the 'resistance'

What was the line of Archbishop Lefebvre?

Here is why I have always thought that I had to go to Rome, that I had to write, that I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them.  (Archbishop Lefebvre - Long Island Conference 1983)

Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are. We wish to continue Tradition as we are doing.

It was over. That was when I took the decision to give the press conference on the 15th of June because I did not wish to act in secret. There can be no durable Tradition without a traditional bishop. ...(Archbishop Lefebvre - One Year After the Consecrations 1989)
As always, I think that actions are more convincing than words. There are some who say to me, you could easily write a grand letter to the pope. But, for twenty years now, we have been writing letters which get nowhere. Once again, actions speak louder than words. When we open a seminary or when we create priories, or when we open schools, when the sisters swarm and the convents multiply, that is the only way of forcing Rome to negotiate. It's not a question of my being there, it's a question of the works we do. At Rome, they're well aware that what we're doing is not nothing. The bishops get a little annoyed when we implant ourselves here and there, and so they complain to Rome and Rome knows what's going on. So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome (Tnote: In 2000 it was Rome that approached the SSPX - as predicted by Archbishop Lefebvre). I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize the fact.(Archbishop Lefebvre - One Year After the Consecrations 1989
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" (Note: This is the basic structure proposed to the SSPX in 2012 with some adjustments) But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! (Note: The Archbishop does not out-of-hand reject the possibility as do the 'resistance') But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. (Archbishop Lefebvre - Two Years After the Consecrations 1990)

I would suggest that being recognized 'as we are' would be accomplished if the Pope regularized the SSPX according to the 'six conditions'.

The opinion of the 'resistance' is definitely going against the second quote - have nothing to do with Rome.

So who really is following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre?  It was always Rome that would not accept him and his little SSPX.  It was the other Bishops who maneuvered the Pope into the sanctions against him.

It was not the other way around. Archbihop Lefebvre followed another Catholic principle: Assuming the good will of the other.

Quite the contrast with those who scream from the housetops that they alone are following the 'line of Archbishop Lefebvre'.

Funny that ...


Friday, March 27, 2015

Dr. Martin Owen - Will I be forced to betray my conscience or quit my profession?


Canada continues to drift from Catholic Morality (Turn About Is Fair Play), I received the following email a couple of days ago and publishing it here is my attempt to get the Catholic (and Christian) Doctor's in Canada support.

Canada's population is nominally 40% Catholic. If we all were united in our support of Catholic Teachings, politicians wouldn't try stunts like this ... hence the reason why I categorized this posting a 'crisis of the Church'.


Sunday, March 22, 2015

How far does the Apple fall from the Tree? Fr. Pfeiffer as the Apple and Bishop Williamson as the Tree. - The Sequel


Earlier I had commented on an article on the Four Marks that allegedly reflected Fr. Pfeiffer's thoughts and opinions on the Four Marks of the Church.

I had concluded that his opinions were inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

A friend of mine has taken the time to review one of the source "youtube" videos upon which the Recusant article was based.   As background here's the Church Teaching on the Four Marks.

My friend's core observations were that:
  1. Father Pfeiffer fails to teach the true meaning of the Marks, and adds other elements giving the impression that they are truly parts of the Marks of the Church. 
  2. He briefly mentions, sotta voce, that Apostolicity includes the Church going back to the apostles,  then states that the other half is that "the Church want's to spread to the whole world." 

Monday, March 16, 2015

Challenges to the 'Resistance' - ie Bishop Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer, Girouard, Chazel, Rua, Hewko, et al


There is a very real danger to Traditional Catholics in this crisis.

Because the crisis runs right up to the Vicar of Christ (ever more apparent in the present Pontificate), who is the principle of the Unity of Faith and Communion (aka Government) - there is a risk that people begin to differ between what they believe to be the Catholic Faith and what actually is the Catholic Faith.

The Sede-vacantists and Ultra-Liberal Catholics are prime examples of this risk manifesting itself, when taken to its extreme conclusion.

The recent association of 'resistance' priests is another example.

As noted herehere, here, herehere, here and recently here, the resistance appears to have a false notion (ie heretical) of what constitutes the Four Marks of the Church.

How can anyone claim to be following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre and hold such opinions?

The answer is that the opinions that the 'resistance' hold are not compatible with Catholicism (be it Dogma, Doctrine, or Principles), therefore assuming that Archbishop Lefebvre was following the Catholic Church in these matters, the 'resistance' cannot be following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.

This crisis is bad and it appears to be getting worse, but another Catholic Principle that the 'resistance' has abandoned is this:

The Ends Do NOT Justify The Means

If the means are not Catholic, then the people employing them are not following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.


Friday, March 13, 2015

A Catholic Friday the 13th


As ominous as it sounds, Friday the 13th isn't the  'bad day' that HollyWood would have you believe.

For example:

  • The Blessed Virgin Mary decided to appear in Fatima every 13th of the month - including Friday July 13th.
  • North America was sighted on the 13th.
Now for this Friday the 13th we should consider that:
  1. The world hasn't ended
  2. We have another day to work out our salvation in fear and trembling
  3. The October Synod of the Family hasn't started yet ...

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Family Synod Preparatory Document - Rorate-Caeli


Pray and do sacrifice, I suspect that the October Synod may just be when Our Lord Jesus Christ decides to lance the wound.

It's going to hurt!!!


Source: Rorate-Caeli

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Avanti - RorateCaeli


I don't usually quote Rorate-Caeli verbatim because I haven't had the opportunity to obtain a carte-blanche permission to re-blog their work.

However, this and the article on the Synod Preparatory document are too important to not disseminate.

First, Pope Francis' opinion on the 'liturgical reform' and V2.

What is obvious is that Pope Francis is clearly a post-Vatican II Pope. Barring a miracle, it is highly unlikely that his successor will be any better.

Until the Church of Christ expunges the virus of Neo-Modernism - things aren't going to get any better.

What to do?  Well, obviously nourish your spiritual life by spiritual reading, prayer etc. Second, study your faith and understand it as the Church does not as you would like it to be.

There is a knife's edge between heresy (modernism etc) and schism (sede-vacantism etc).

Tread carefully on the edge, you may get cut on doctrine but as long as you adhere to it - you're as safe as anyone can be during this crisis.


Source: Rorate-Caeli

Additional Reference: Blog for Dallas Catholics

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Conclusions & Lessons Learned


After more than four years of engaging in discussions (in-person and online) with:
  • 'Modern' Catholics
  • Resistors
  • Sede-Vacantists
I have arrived at the following principles for keeping discussions from flailing from one issue to another without ever reaching agreement on key points.

Tradical's Principles for Principled Discussions (TPPD)
  1. Keep calm, it is not your truth, it is the truth (Archbishop Lefebvre)
  2. It is pointless to argue with a person who defends an absurdity.
  3. Be aware of cultural landmines and when tripped, step back.
  4. Don't argue opinions, anchor all discussions in Doctrine!
Sadly, I have found that most people have a hard time reconciling their 'beliefs' with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Pray and Study!!!


Friday, March 6, 2015

The Line of Archbishop Lefebvre


Some acquaintances of mine received a nice family photo from a friend.  On the inside of the card was written a short note that except for the following was full of the regular niceties.
It's too bad that you've abandoned the line of Archbishop Lefebvre. To have come so far in the battle for the true faith, only to lose one's way at the end is indeed sad indeed.  Read, study, and pray for the grace to see clearly in this crisis.
I can avouch that my friends have  'read, studied, and prayed'. What they studied was the teachings of the Church (some of which are presented here on this blog). They did not "study" the writings/rantings of Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Chazal, Fr. Rua, Fr. Girouard et al.  The only time that these utterances were examined was to hold them up to the light of Catholic Teaching.

  Comparing the teachings of the Church to the writing of the Bishop and priests associated with the 'resistance' has only solidified them in their conviction that anyone who departs from Catholic principles, doctrine and dogma CANNOT be following the path of Archbishop Lefebvre.