Author Topic: Are Resistance Priests "Vagus" ? (Read 6310 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** October 23, 2015, 06:35:53 PM »

.
This reply below harbors an error in distinction because there are two different entities "in chaos" being referred to.

Quote from: IN VERITATE VICTORIA

Quote from: J.Paul
A meaningless discussion. Almost all of legitimate Tradition, save a few exceptions has objectively operated outside of the Church's law in one fashion or another since the false council.

It is applying normal requirements in an abnormal situation.

I. -- This first entity in chaos is the hierarchy of the Church due to the false council Vat.II.

Because of this chaos, the priests following Tradition objectively operate outside the Church law in one way or another. It is a situation not separate, that is, unrelated to the chaos in the world, but it is to be carefully distinguished from worldly chaos.

Quote

That's an absolute cop-out! Same mind-set as Synod15 in the Vatican.... "Let's not apply the normal requirements of marriage on couples in today's abnormal chaotic world...."

II. -- This second entity in chaos emerging as the worldly mindset of Synod 15 has very little to do with the problems in the Church inasmuch as these participants are not recognizing the error of Vat.II and therefore are not diligently trying to uphold Tradition against the corruption of the false council. They are presuming from the start that Vat.II was legitimate and reliable even while the problems they're ostensibly trying to cope with are objectively consequent to the false council in the first place, and by this malfeasance of the upper hierarchy they are further contributing to the world's problems instead of helping to solve them.

Quote

ABL always insisted on authority and structure for his priests and every one of them, without exception, had/has a superior to answer to. You can't have priests running around like wild cats, doing whatever they like, with no superior to correct them!

I find it ironic that you are worried about "priests running around like wild cats" who are actually as a matter of fact (at least to a large degree) acting as the SOLE guardians of Sacred Tradition on planet earth, even while you cite the deplorable outgrowth of a false council (Vat.II) in its Synod 15 as having the "same mind-set."

Think about it.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2015, 07:15:58 PM »

.

My previous post, above, touches on the bad fruits of a generic false synod, for there are two synods in focus here, Synod 15 (this year) and the synod otherwise known as Vatican Council II.

The former does nothing to resolve problems in the world, even if the words generated by it say that the intention of the Synod was to do just that. It does nothing for the betterment of society or of the Church because from the very beginning they held a false principle, that is, that Vat.II was a true Council of the Church and by following its principles Synod 15 can only be an action of the Holy Spirit, or whatever they want to call it this time.

But Vatican II (the latter) shares the same problem because from the very beginning it was openly stated that the intention of those LEADING the Council was to do and to intend otherwise than what had been the intention of ALL PREVIOUS 20 authentic Ecuмenical Councils of the Church.

(Keep in mind that "Ecuмenical Council" refers to a council where all the bishops of the world are called together to meet for a set purpose. BTW, it does not have to be the Pope who calls them, but if the Pope does call them, that's not a problem. This term "Ecuмenical" has nothing to do with the recent new word, "ecuмenism." It refers to all the CATHOLIC bishops of the world while "ecuмenism" involves any or all of the false creeds and their respective representatives and principles.)

The essence of Sacred Tradition is to do and to intend and to pass on to the next generation exactly what had been handed down from previous generations, to hand down what one has received from above, as the 4 Latin words on ABL's tomb so firmly pronounce in the mind of a knowing observer.

Since the intention at this Synod 15 has been corrupted by the defective intention of its defective progenitor, the defective Vat.II, there can be no correction of the problem until the source is recognized, that is, the unCatholic intention of Vat.II.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2015, 08:01:44 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

My previous post, above, touches on the bad fruits of a generic false synod, for there are two synods in focus here, Synod 15 (this year) and the synod otherwise known as Vatican Council II.

The former does nothing to resolve problems in the world, even if the words generated by it say that the intention of the Synod was to do just that. It does nothing for the betterment of society or of the Church because from the very beginning they held a false principle, that is, that Vat.II was a true Council of the Church and by following its principles Synod 15 can only be an action of the Holy Spirit, or whatever they want to call it this time.

But Vatican II (the latter) shares the same problem because from the very beginning it was openly stated that the intention of those LEADING the Council was to do and to intend otherwise than what had been the intention of ALL PREVIOUS 20 authentic Ecuмenical Councils of the Church.

(Keep in mind that "Ecuмenical Council" refers to a council where all the bishops of the world are called together to meet for a set purpose. BTW, it does not have to be the Pope who calls them, but if the Pope does call them, that's not a problem. This term "Ecuмenical" has nothing to do with the recent new word, "ecuмenism." It refers to all the CATHOLIC bishops of the world while "ecuмenism" involves any or all of the false creeds and their respective representatives and principles.)

The essence of Sacred Tradition is to do and to intend and to pass on to the next generation exactly what had been handed down from previous generations, to hand down what one has received from above, as the 4 Latin words on ABL's tomb so firmly pronounce in the mind of a knowing observer.

Since the intention at this Synod 15 has been corrupted by the defective intention of its defective progenitor, the defective Vat.II, there can be no correction of the problem until the source is recognized, that is, the unCatholic intention of Vat.II.

.

Hear! Hear! :applause:

Pepe · « **Reply #33 on:** October 24, 2015, 04:51:10 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

My previous post, above, touches on the bad fruits of a generic false synod, for there are two synods in focus here, Synod 15 (this year) and the synod otherwise known as Vatican Council II.

The former does nothing to resolve problems in the world, even if the words generated by it say that the intention of the Synod was to do just that. It does nothing for the betterment of society or of the Church because from the very beginning they held a false principle, that is, that Vat.II was a true Council of the Church and by following its principles Synod 15 can only be an action of the Holy Spirit, or whatever they want to call it this time.

But Vatican II (the latter) shares the same problem because from the very beginning it was openly stated that the intention of those LEADING the Council was to do and to intend otherwise than what had been the intention of ALL PREVIOUS 20 authentic Ecuмenical Councils of the Church.

(Keep in mind that "Ecuмenical Council" refers to a council where all the bishops of the world are called together to meet for a set purpose. BTW, it does not have to be the Pope who calls them, but if the Pope does call them, that's not a problem. This term "Ecuмenical" has nothing to do with the recent new word, "ecuмenism." It refers to all the CATHOLIC bishops of the world while "ecuмenism" involves any or all of the false creeds and their respective representatives and principles.)

The essence of Sacred Tradition is to do and to intend and to pass on to the next generation exactly what had been handed down from previous generations, to hand down what one has received from above, as the 4 Latin words on ABL's tomb so firmly pronounce in the mind of a knowing observer.

Since the intention at this Synod 15 has been corrupted by the defective intention of its defective progenitor, the defective Vat.II, there can be no correction of the problem until the source is recognized, that is, the unCatholic intention of Vat.II.

.

Look, what I was trying to point out with this thread is simply that, as St. Benedict said in his Rule, priests need to be subject to a superior, regardless of the state of the Church today. In fact, it is probably more important for the priest to have a definite structure in his life these days, than it was before Vat II. We don't need endless lessons on the errors of the modern world or Vat II to know this.... We wouldn't be Traditional Catholics if we thought that everything was hunky dorey. How can a priest preach obedience to the Ten Commandments, when he himself practices obedience to no-one? Yes, the SSPX is in an irregular situation in the Church, but that has never been used as an excuse to throw out all authority, structure and hierarchy. The resistance, on the other hand, are as Bishop Williamson puts it, are a loosely connected group of priests with no formal structure and no authority over them. That's a recipe for disaster....

hollingsworth · « **Reply #34 on:** October 24, 2015, 09:57:49 AM »

pepe:

Quote

How can a priest preach obedience to the Ten Commandments, when he himself practices obedience to no-one? Yes, the SSPX is in an irregular situation in the Church, but that has never been used as an excuse to throw out all authority, structure and hierarchy. The resistance, on the other hand, are as Bishop Williamson puts it, are a loosely connected group of priests with no formal structure and no authority over them. That's a recipe for disaster....

Ergo...

1) We should go back to SSPX because it operates with at least a semblance of "authority, structure and hierarchy." OR,

2) We should adhere to the OLMC "resistance," because at least it attempts to resurrect the Lefebvrian idea of central authority and a hierarchy which should to be obeyed. OR,

3) We should go back to the NO. BUT ABOVE ALL,

3) We should stay way clear of Bp. Williamson, because he represents a "loosely connected group of priests," with "no formal structure and authority over them." LOL.

Thanks, pepe. BTW, which alternative have you chosen, sir?

JPaul · « **Reply #35 on:** October 24, 2015, 04:02:15 PM »

The only thread of authentic authority that the SSPX had was contained in the Archbishop and the ecclesial approval which he originally received for his seminary, but, which was not renewed.
So if you are claiming that there was true authority in the group, there was not, it was an illusion save for the personal authority connected to the Archbishop himself.
Even if he was a titular bishop, he was a titled and approved Archbishop of the Church, and so submission to him should have been both normal and expected, even if voluntary.

Bishop Williamson has no more and no less but that relevant to his office within the hierarchy, he is higher than a priest, having the complete dignity of the priesthood.

The so called resistance priests should submit to that reality and he should as well, as his episcopal status places both responsibility and duties upon him.

So while there is not a formal structure of authority, there is an accepted sense of place that Catholics have lived for many centuries and it should continued to be observed as that is the will of the Church.

Even if but two Catholics are left in the world, it can never be every man for himself and according to what suits him.

Matthew · « **Reply #36 on:** October 24, 2015, 04:39:23 PM »

Good point.

It reminds me of how things go in the military. Even if there are only 2 soldiers left, what is the first thing they do? Establish who is in command. It doesn't matter if all that's left is a Private and a Corporal. It might be a thin remnant of a squad that originally had 10 men. It doesn't matter what their chances are, etc. Before they proceed to plot an escape, decide what to do, etc. they will first establish the chain of command. That way the remaining "squad" will have 1 leader and one or more subordinates.

The US Government is the same way. There is a long chain of "who would be in charge" if the first 1, the first 5 or the first 10 people in the government were killed (in a surprise nuclear attack, for example).

In the seminary that's how it was -- hierarchical. Even within a class (say, the 2nd Year class) there was a precise hierarchy, dictated by age. This determined where you sat in choir, and a few other things.

The Church is hierarchical. It operates on the exact opposite of anarchy or democracy.

Pepe · « **Reply #37 on:** October 26, 2015, 05:14:50 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Good point.

It reminds me of how things go in the military. Even if there are only 2 soldiers left, what is the first thing they do? Establish who is in command. It doesn't matter if all that's left is a Private and a Corporal. It might be a thin remnant of a squad that originally had 10 men. It doesn't matter what their chances are, etc. Before they proceed to plot an escape, decide what to do, etc. they will first establish the chain of command. That way the remaining "squad" will have 1 leader and one or more subordinates.

The US Government is the same way. There is a long chain of "who would be in charge" if the first 1, the first 5 or the first 10 people in the government were killed (in a surprise nuclear attack, for example).

In the seminary that's how it was -- hierarchical. Even within a class (say, the 2nd Year class) there was a precise hierarchy, dictated by age. This determined where you sat in choir, and a few other things.

The Church is hierarchical. It operates on the exact opposite of anarchy or democracy.

Thank you Matthew, that's exactly my point.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 26, 2015, 11:48:37 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

It reminds me of how things go in the military. Even if there are only 2 soldiers left, what is the first thing they do? Establish who is in command. It doesn't matter if all that's left is a Private and a Corporal. It might be a thin remnant of a squad that originally had 10 men. It doesn't matter what their chances are, etc. Before they proceed to plot an escape, decide what to do, etc. they will first establish the chain of command. That way the remaining "squad" will have 1 leader and one or more subordinates.

The US Government is the same way. There is a long chain of "who would be in charge" if the first 1, the first 5 or the first 10 people in the government were killed (in a surprise nuclear attack, for example).

In the seminary that's how it was -- hierarchical. Even within a class (say, the 2nd Year class) there was a precise hierarchy, dictated by age. This determined where you sat in choir, and a few other things.

The Church is hierarchical. It operates on the exact opposite of anarchy or democracy.

Bingo!

Now, if only someone would please pull Bp. Williamson aside and explain this to him, for he has a great potential to do an awesome and important work for the Church, but as long as he continues this "'loosely connected group of priests,' with 'no formal structure and authority over them'" nonsense the entire utility of his being a bishop is as good as canceled.

ubipetrus · « **Reply #39 on:** October 26, 2015, 12:09:30 PM »

Quote from: IN VERITATE VICTORIA

J.Paul]Isn't it amazing that the priests and bishops of the resistance all accepted the authority of the SSPX, from the time they entered the seminary, through to their daily lives at the various priories, following the rota for Masses and vacations laid down by their superiors and then suddenly, when they leave the SSPX, it never had any authority over them at all! Talk about double standards......

Perhaps this too has been a part of what has been going on, with the rise of anticlericalism among those who nevertheless still count themselves as traditional Catholics!

It is perhaps too easy to say that a person has no (practical) authority when their direction cannot be followed in good conscience. But it appears that those who have left the SSPX, if in doing so they repudiate the authority of the SSPX, have in that acted like certain less-well-behaved sedevacantists in suddenly claiming a total lack of authority altogether.

I for one would far rather recommend a "recognize and resist" policy being applied even to resistance bishops (e. g. Fellay or Williamson) who at least are real and indisputable Catholics, but whose teaching and example may at times be less than sound or even may need to be resisted on some point or other. I know it must be something of a real irony - a resistance leader himself having to be resisted by the members of his own resistance, but that is infinitely better than denying the existence of any authentically Catholic authority in the world.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #40 on:** October 26, 2015, 01:27:28 PM »

ubi:

Quote

Now, if only someone would please pull Bp. Williamson aside and explain this to him, for he has a great potential to do an awesome and important work for the Church, but as long as he continues this "'loosely connected group of priests,' with 'no formal structure and authority over them'" nonsense the entire utility of his being a bishop is as good as canceled.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning at all. You're saying, as I understand it anyway, that Bp. Williamson should recreate a Menzingen-style central command. Then he should herd these "loosely connected" priests back into a new organization, on the Lefebvrian model, so as to re-establish a "formal structure," in accordance, I guess, with some military/hierarchical concept which Matthew and a few others seem to be putting forth.

No way, IMO! The bishop tells us that he's been there and done that. That era is over, he explains. We must move on in a different kind of survivor mode. I think Fr. Pfeiffer set up that reeking mess back in Boston, KY on exactly the same kinds of quasi-Lefebvrian premises.

Pepe · « **Reply #41 on:** October 26, 2015, 02:28:59 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

ubi:
Quote
Now, if only someone would please pull Bp. Williamson aside and explain this to him, for he has a great potential to do an awesome and important work for the Church, but as long as he continues this "'loosely connected group of priests,' with 'no formal structure and authority over them'" nonsense the entire utility of his being a bishop is as good as canceled.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning at all. You're saying, as I understand it anyway, that Bp. Williamson should recreate a Menzingen-style central command. Then he should herd these "loosely connected" priests back into a new organization, on the Lefebvrian model, so as to re-establish a "formal structure," in accordance, I guess, with some military/hierarchical concept which Matthew and a few others seem to be putting forth.

No way, IMO! The bishop tells us that he's been there and done that. That era is over, he explains. We must move on in a different kind of survivor mode. I think Fr. Pfeiffer set up that reeking mess back in Boston, KY on exactly the same kinds of quasi-Lefebvrian premises.

Yeah.....that's what Luther said when he left the formal structure and authority of the Church......

hollingsworth · « **Reply #42 on:** October 26, 2015, 02:37:25 PM »

pepe:

Quote

Yeah.....that's what Luther said when he left the formal structure and authority of the Church......

Ah, so you're saying that Bp. Williamson has pulled a 'Luther' on us? I see. I could perhaps argue that the Church of Luther's day was not quite at the point that today's church finds herself. But why do that? It might only prolong a thread which should've been over much earlier, IMO>