Skip to main content

"Resistors" and the path of Archbishop Lefebvre

Image
By
+
JMJ

As it is rather timely, here's another 'resistance' post.

The 'resistance' blog 'tradcatknight' (TCK) has posted an answer to some 'critics' that bears examination as it manifests a number of the 'resistance' assumptions.  While I have discussed some core assumptions in this series, TCK has demonstrated the diversity of opinions within the 'resistance' that would fall into Old Bishop Williamsons 'sedevacantist' category.


Here are some key points that I picked out:

TCK: You are Sedevacantists- No, TradCatKnight nor the Resistance are sedevacantists. 
I have heard this 'claim' from various 'resistors' in the past. It will be interesting to see if TCK's ideas are consistent with what Old Bishop Williamson claimed was a sedevacantist position.

TCK: We maintain Vatican II was not Catholic, period
This is interesting on a number of levels. First of all, it was convoked by a Catholic Pope, Catholic Bishops participated in it, and it was closed by a Catholic Pope.  Seems to establish the Dogmatic Fact that V2 was, sadly, an Ecumenical Council.

More importantly, from TCK's perspective,  we have this tidbit from the Old Bishop Williamson:
Vatican II was illegimate from the very beginning. It was not a Catholic Council in any way at all.
This seems to be identical to TCK's claim that 'Vatican II was not Catholic, period'.  Old Bishop Williamson classified this as the 'Extreme' sedevacantist position.  To paraphrase Shakespeare: Me thinks he doth protest too much.
TCK: it is the pastoral implementation of the Novus Ordo religion which soon ends in the formal schism (invalid excathedra uniting all humanity/religions) ... Can everyone now see that connection between that pastoral teaching and the soon coming FORMAL invalid excathedra which will essentially restate the SAME THING. 

This appears to be nothing more than a 'conspiracy' theory.  Fundamentally, the Pope can't be in schism from the Church because he is part of the mark of unity.
TCK: We have not started another Church we are essentially what remains "of the Church" because the Conciliar/Vatican II church is a counterfeit NewChurch forewarned even by approved mystics. 
This reminds me of something I read in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
For in after ages there would not be wanting wicked men who, like the ape that would fain pass for a man, would claim that they alone were Catholics, and with no less impiety than effrontery assert that with them alone is the Catholic Church." Catechism of Trent
Need to be careful about the use of the work 'NewChurch' - because the Four Marks need to exist somewhere and the Pope is part of the mark of Unity (Oneness).
TCK: Catholics MUST separate themselves from heresy let alone a WHOLE NEW RELIGION which is orientated towards man.
This is interesting in that it represents a common thread amongst the 'resistors'.  The problem this creates is how to ensure that they don't commit the sin of schism by denying communion with other Catholics not to mention the refusal of submission to a legitimate command by the Pope.
TCK: Why not follow SSPX under Bishop Fellay then they are following what Archbishop Lefebvre taught? They are absolutely not following what Archbishop Lefebvre taught. ... The Neo-SSPX follows Michael Matt (pseudo traditionalist) and the Remnants position not Archbishop Lefebvre. ... What Lefebvre truly taught is only being maintained in the Resistance. ... Well then you are a 'practical sedevacantist" in theory then! And? so what? That was Archbishop Lefebvres true position. 
This is a mantra of the 'resistance', however, I've already discussed this issue in this article.  I refuse to believe that the Archbishop would abandon Catholic Dogma's, Doctrines and Principles like the 'resistance'.
TCK: To be in "full communion" with Modernist/heretical Rome is NOT a GOOD THING ... Objectively speaking one cannot be Catholic and follow Vatican II and therefore that is the dilemma.  Appear to be Catholic and turn our backs on Tradition and ultimately God or stand up in TRUE RESISTANCE for Tradition and thus ultimately please God. ... In order to be considered in the Church you must accept Vatican II.  YES and that is our problem because Catholics cannot accept Vatican II and thus must remain on the "outside" of those buildings until Modernist Rome converts (which the coming chastisements will do). Those following Vatican II are "Catholic" only in name they do not have the Catholic Apostolic Faith and Gospel which may cost them their souls unfortunately. 
Inside this mess, it appears that TCK does not believe that the organization under the leadership of Pope Francis is the Mystical Body of Christ ie the Catholic Church.  Perhaps he ascribes to the model illustrated below, which creates other problems as it impinges upon the visibility of the Catholic Church.

But once a person accepts an altered (ie heretical) interpretation of the Four Marks of the Church, re-imagining  the doctrine of the Visibility of the Church is a simple matter.

Much of what TCK discusses appears to be founded on the belief that the Second Vatican Council explicitly taught heresy in the first degree. This creates a few problems such as:

  1. Archbishop Lefebvre signed every document of V2. Note he did not vote placeat for a number, but in the end he did sign all of them.
  2. Indefectibility of the Church (a doctrine not dogma) should have prevented this from occuring if heresy in the first degree was involved.
  3. Material Heresy does not exclude a Catholic from the Church. As V2 is not explicitly Heretical (rupture with doctrine is not the same as rupture with dogma) they are still Catholic - until they either separate themselves from the Church or ignore canonical 
So TCK is consistent with some of the prevalent 'resistance' mantras and adds his own concerning V2 etc. While he does claim to not be a 'sedevacantist' he holds a position that Old Bishop Williamson labelled as extreme sedevacantist.  

Of course, this isn't at all consistent with the thought or path of Archbishop Lefebvre because it isn't consistent with Church Dogma, Doctrine and Principles.

P^3

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ 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
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R
Post a Comment
Read more

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

By
+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae
Post a Comment
Read more