I call it a sermon, because that's what Pablo called it.
"Sermon Mr Greg Taylor Chief in Charge European Resistance Conference April 3 2016"

My comments are in italics



(2:30)
He takes St. Paul's quote from Galatians 1:8:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

His translation is a bit off though, and he distorts it. His "interesting tidbit to make you go hmmmm" is that St. Paul said "other than" or "different from", not necessarily "something bad".
This is novel, to be sure, but is probably erroneous as well.

Bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu.
A thing is good if ALL its elements are good; bad if it has even one defect.

He says if you're 99.9% Catholic, you're not Catholic. (What about the power to try, condemn, and excommunicate heretics being reserved to Church authorities?)
"It's not difficult to understand".

Yes, indeed, this doctrine is for the simple minded.
So a priest with any error at all, real or imagined, is to be summarily excommunicated and declared vitandus by priests and even laymen?
What if you just don't like this priest, or you disagree with him on some disputed point of theology? What about a point of doctrine touching on the Crisis in the Church, which is far from simple?
Can we go ahead and just excommunicate priests, or even distort their doctrine to appear even more evil, so we can try to pry away his followers and attach them to ourselves?

(4:30)
Greg then talks about why we call ourselves Resistance, Traditional Catholics, and Catholics (rather than Christian). He and I are on the exact same page about this issue. I understand the sentiment, but we have to adhere to the descriptive, commonly used labels, for the sake of understanding and clarity. Words mean things.

(5:00)
"Why we're in a hotel, not a church, God doesn't need impressive, external things."

Yes, that's one aspect, but you don't want to go the other way and DENY the objective good of "smells and bells" which the True Church has made use of for centuries to express our Faith and help us raise our minds and hearts to God. Like Catholics say to the protestants and iconoclasts (statue-breakers), man is BODY and soul. We are not angels. There is an old saying, something along the lines of, "Try to make man an angel, he will become a devil." The early Church might not have had pontifical High Masses at the throne, but the seeds were there. Look at how Our Lord, during His public ministry, made use of material things -- without any necessity -- to effect His cures. And the Old Testament religion was replete with use of material things in God's worship: song, incense, vestments, gold, candles, tables, altars, bread, water, animal sacrifices, etc.

Greg talks about a deceased friend; reminisces about his college experience.

His old friend told him how the Novus Ordo wasn't the religion he remembered from his youth; when he saw the SSPX, he said "That's what I remember. That's what it was like."

He describes the old pre-Vatican II church.
(7:15)

I don't know, Greg, that sure sounds like my argument for why you need to lay off Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia. The Masses I attend every Sunday are 100% Catholic. My family and I receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as well as solid Catholic doctrine and the edifying example of holy priests. We are receiving grace and spiritual benefit by attending these Masses. Sow whatever other religion you're peddling, I'm not interested. I have my Catholic Faith right here. I'm willing to stake my eternal salvation on that. My sensus Catholicus works as well as yours does. I know Catholic when I see and hear it.

So you claim to have a "common sense" or "down to earth" attitude towards Traditional Catholicism, but it's fake. In reality, you are sectarian, trying to pick apart the Blue Papers of Fr. Zendejas for whom English is a second language. Any conclusions you claim to draw from this or that sentence of Fr. Zendejas (twisted out of context and distorted beyond all recognition), I could easily disprove by A) other Blue Papers where he talks about that point in any kind of detail, B) his sermons, and C) his life, history and actions. You must think you're really slick, helping "your man" Fr. Pfeiffer in his battle. I noticed your last Recusant was 80-90% directed at Fr. Pfeiffer's enemies, and barely mentioned the SSPX at all. That's because you're not really SSPX Resistance, you instead work for a breakaway cult seeking to recruit members and support from the group most open to your views: the SSPX Resistance. (It's a common trope. The Sedevacantists usually focus 99% of their conversion efforts on Traditional Catholics. You don't see them trying to convert pagans, protestants or Novus Ordo Catholics.)

By the way, how long have you been Traditional Catholic? You mentioned going to a Novus Ordo college. Do you know where I went to college? St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN for 3 1/2 years. The equivalent of a Bachelors Degree, but of course there was no earthly degree to be had. The only benefit to be found in such a place is spiritual benefit. How many years did you give to God, in a religious order or seminary? Were you ever willing to sacrifice your life as a priest if it be God's will? I've been Traditional Catholic for my whole life, coming up on 4 decades. I'm only bringing this up to take a page out of St. Paul's handbook. Remember when St. Paul pointed out to his Faithful that "are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they sons of Abraham? So am I." There were heretics leading astray his newly-converted flock, and St. Paul wanted them to understand that he was far from "weak in this matter" when it comes to true concern for their souls, undergoing sufferings for the Faith, etc. Seriously, if you are a warrior for the truth, a lover of God, a faithful Athanasius, and one whose advice should be taken seriously today, then just looking at our respective Traditional Catholic resumes and qualifications, "I am more." (as St. Paul himself said in 2 Cor 11).

Long story short, when I attend Mass at St. Dominic's chapel on Sundays, I say, "This is what I remember! This is the religion I was brought up in." referring to the independent Traditional chapel of my youth, as well as the old SSPX (which you yourself said was equivalent to the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church). If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

(8:50)

Greg explains how his friend was a "lapsed Catholic" who left the Novus Ordo for "many years" (25-30 years), and then when he came back (to the SSPX/Tradition), he "picked up where he left off". He didn't have to be converted again, he didn't have to have a course of catechism.

He contrasted that with this man John Alna's friends who went to school with him at Hearst college -- all of them Modernist, because "they didn't lapse." They went to the New Mass for 30 years.

(11:10)
Talked about a home aloner in the Caribbean, and how Archbishop Lefebvre told a woman, "Your husband is right [staying home]. Don't go to the New Mass."

(12:30)
Some nice false humility here. He says he's just a layman, who doesn't "have any special duty, or gift, or charism, that you don't have yourselves..."

There's something we can agree with!

(13:05)
"In 2013, we started the Resistance"

Perhaps you were involved from the earliest days of the Resistance, but I think you're leaving quite a few people out. The SSPX Resistance is a MOVEMENT, not an elite club. It happened independently and spontaneously all over the world. Not every Resistant priest or layman today received their gift of Resistance from Fr. Pfeiffer. It is a grace from God. And Fr. Pfeiffer is neither God, nor the Resistance, nor the head of the Resistance. He is only the head of his own Fr. Pfeiffer Fan Club, and Rector of the Mickey Mouse Seminary in Boston, KY. Beyond that, all other roles he delegates to himself are an illusion.

(13:26)
He begins re-hashing the history of the Resistance, starting from 2012. But he emphasizes that he is going to focus on England.

For the most part, I'm not that knowledgeable about England, it being quite far from the open fields of rural Texas where I live. But there is one thing about the Resistance in 2012 England I'd like to mention, and that is: A certain priest in England posted his copy of that famous "Letter of the one to the three" and the "Letter of the three to the one" on CathInfo. This was actually done a day or two after I openly invited such a post (in a vague manner). And from that day, the Resistance was born worldwide.

Another thing about England: Back then Ignis Ardens existed. It no longer does, for whatever reason. But I want to point out one other thing: Easter 2013 the SSPX made a plea to forums and blogs to shut down so people could focus on their Lent without distractions. Ignis Ardens immediately agreed, and suspended its forum. CathInfo adamantly refused. A few days later, Ignis Ardens re-opened their forum, probably motivated by a desire to not fade into oblivion and lose all their members to CathInfo!

Long story short, any "history of the Resistance" which fails to mention CathInfo at all is biased and disingenuine at best, and deceptive and hate-filled propaganda at worst.

Perhaps I'll continue this later, but despite the video counter reading "13:26", it has taken much longer than 14 minutes to compose this post!

Quote from: Matthew

Bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu.
A thing is good if ALL its elements are good; bad if it has even one defect.

Apply this to the NOM?

Oh it's bad. We're all Trads aren't we? I wouldn't be caught dead at a Novus Ordo Mass. But we'll leave it at that in this thread, since we already have a recent thread, within shouting distance, wherein we argue the specifics of the Novus Ordo Mass.

Please don't derail this thread. Or should I be more accurate and say, please don't TRY to derail this thread.

So does anybody have an idea why all of these priests are meeting in England?

I'm not going to believe for a second that 5 figures or more was spent on plane tickets just so that everyone could listen to Taylor give an impromptu monologue.

So does anybody have an idea why all of these priests are meeting in England?

I'm not going to believe for a second that 5 figures or more was spent on plane tickets just so that everyone could listen to Taylor give an impromptu monologue.

The purpose of this conference was not stated. Obviously, there is still money in the Pfeiffer kitty. Taylor did make out that Bishop Williamson was/is hesitant about promoting the Resistance.

I also did listen to about a third of Fr Pfeiffer's talk. In his brief comments on India, there were some half-truths. Based on what he said about the R.N. Kandighai Mass Centre, there should have been at least 1000 people for Fr Suneel's ordination in August 2015. After all, this ordination was a major event. Yet there were between 200-250 people including some  from Chennai. He also mentioned how the Chennai Mass Centre came to the Resistance, but at that time the then Asia District superior, Fr Couture, published his own version of things.

 

Bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu. A thing is good if ALL its elements are good; bad if it has even one defect. He says if you're 99.9% Catholic, you're not Catholic. It's not difficult to understand"

A Resistance Priest told me that there is a fallacy there. Catholic is every member of the Catholic Church. In the Church there are living members and dead members (see the Catechism of St. Pius X), and one stops being a member of the Church because of excommunication “vitandi”, schism, apostasy, heresy formal and public. Then, the material heretic who has the 99.9% of the Catholic faith, IS CATHOLIC. Either you’re Catholic or you are not.  Strictly speaking, we cannot be more or less Catholic. Taylor speaks improperly. He speaks with bad theology.

Taylor is unaware that the principle “Bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu” is applied to the ACTIONS, from the MORAL point of view; and is not applied to the FACTS, THINGS OR PERSONS.

That’s why we can’t say that the Catholic Church is BAD because there are bad people within. Bonum ex integra causa, malum  ex quocuмque defectu. “Quacuмque defectu” = literally, any defect. There are defects in the Church, then it is BAD.

I cannot qualify as BAD the Crusades because some crusaders were greedy or cruel. I cannot qualify as BAD the Holy Inquisition because sometimes committed some excesses.

What exactly does this moral axiom mean? The sources of morality are 3: object, aim and circuмstances. Considering these 3 elements, the action is judged good or bad. Then, “Bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu” simply means: that the action is bad if there is wickedness about the object, about the aim or about the circuмstances.

“In order that an action may possess in an essential degree — no action is absolutely perfect — its moral perfection, it must be in conformity with the law in three respects:
•   The action, considered under the character by which it ranks as an element of conduct, must be good. The physical act of giving another person money may be either an act of justice, when one pays a debt, or it may be an act of mercy or benevolence, as it is if one give the money to relieve distress. Both, of these actions possess the fundamental element of goodness (bonum ex objecto).
•   The motive, if there is a motive beyond the immediate object of the act, must also be good. If one pays a man some money that one owes him with the purpose, indeed, of paying one's debts, but also with the ulterior purpose of enabling him to carry out a plot to murder one's enemy, the end is bad, and the action is thereby vitiated. The end which is the motive must also be good(bonum ex fine). Thus, an action, otherwise good, is spoiled if directed to an immoral end; conversely, however, an action which in its fundamental character is bad is not rendered good by directing it to a good end. The end does not justify the means.
•   The circuмstances under which the action is performed should be in entire conformity with reason, otherwise it lacks something of moral completeness, though it may not be thereby rendered totally immoral. We frequently say that something which a person has done was right enough in itself, but he did not do it in the proper place or season.
This triple goodness is expressed in the axiom: bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu ("An action is good when good in every respect; it is wrong when wrong in any respect").”  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

Cristera, thank you for posting that.

First, I want to apologize for the links not working. The forum software needs to be updated for PHP 5.5, which is the version used on the new server. We're on a new, dedicated server now. I'm actively working on it. It should hopefully be fixed in a day or two.

Back to the issue at hand --
The thing is, people like myself and Greg Taylor are educated enough to know OF that axiom, but neither of us has been to Moral Theology class to become proper educated Theologians, even to a minimal degree.

I didn't even know how that axiom was to be applied. All I knew, from a down-to-earth, layman's common sense standpoint was that something was off. (If something was "bad if it's bad in any of its parts", then the Catholic Church must be evil because there are certainly some bad priests in the Church -- even if you restrict yourself to Traditional priests.)

This is a classic case of "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."

Fr. Pfeiffer should know this stuff. He should be correcting Greg Taylor. But you see, he's already compromised himself (and the Faith!) for the "end" of being head honcho of the Resistance, running his seminary, etc. He is actively practicing the condemned path of "the ends justify the means". He is distorting Fr. Zendejas' sermons, attacking bishops and priests, and doing all kinds of morally reprehensible actions, for the sake of his private goals. This is obviously wrong! And Father must be called out on it. If we love him or care about him at all, we should admonish him.

Someone wrote in with a few more observations:

At 53:45ish:
Greg Taylor:  you know you are doing the right thing if you are feeling tortured.
Catholic Saints:  peace of soul is an indication one is doing the right thing.

At 54 mins:
Greg Taylor:  there are 5 marks of the Church
Catholic Church:  there are 4 marks of the Church.

At 54:30ish:
Greg Taylor:  keeping Sunday sanctified is a law of the Church.
Catholic Church: keeping Sunday holy is divine law.

(7:15)

... In reality, you are sectarian, trying to pick apart the Blue Papers of Fr. Zendejas for whom English is a second language. Any conclusions you claim to draw from this or that sentence of Fr. Zendejas (twisted out of context and distorted beyond all recognition), I could easily disprove ...

English is a second language for Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.

Come to think of it, English was a second language for Archbishop Lefebvre too.