Author Topic: SELF-CONTRADICTION: THE PROBLEM WITH THE RESISTANCE (Read 12212 times)

cantatedomino · « **on:** June 29, 2013, 12:29:41 PM »

Points to note:

1. On June 27, 2013, via a signed docuмent entitled "Declaration of Bishops of Society of St. Pius X," +Fellay, +Tissier, and +de Galaretta nominate themselves "Bishops of the SSPX."

2. On June 29, 2013 Bishop Richard Williamson included himself in the self-nominated "SSPX Resistance." He was the leading signatory on a docuмent called "SSPX Resistance Declaration." Wherefore, by his own self-nomination, on June 29, 2013, he is a member of the "SSPX Resistance."

3. On June 28, 2013 he published this statement: “Again I am being urged by a valiant participant in today’s Catholic “Resistance” to put myself at the head of it." Thus he admits that people perceive that he has explicitly refused to lead the Resistance. He does not deny a) that he has been asked to lead it; and b) that he has refused the request.

4. If we read June 28th in the light of June 29th, then may we conclude that he is currently a member of the "Resistance" but not its head? I would answer in the negative.

5. +Williamson has yet to admit that, though he says he refuses to, he nevertheless actually leads the "SSPX Resistance," in virtue of the universal recognition of his apostolic authority. As I said in another thread, +Williamson is actually and assiduously leading the "Resistance," whilst simultaneously insisting he is not. That is self-contradiction, which harms souls by throwing them into confusion. Indeed, to make sure it is perfectly clear that he refuses to admit that he leads the Resistance by virtue of his episcopal consecration, he states that he has answered a valiant man's arguments, which answers are "proposed to anybody but imposed on nobody." Now that statement, coming from an Apostle, should be disgusting to any red-blooded Catholic for a multitude of reasons.

6. We should give long and hard consideration to this also: Bishop Williamson chooses for his own self-justification (and even self-identification), the slogan Authority Crippled.

Whose authority is crippled? God's? +ABL's? +Fellay's? His own?

He states that "God gave the dying breath of true Church authority to Archbishop Lefebvre, whose successors have cruelly abused it."

That statement needs unpacking. The subject is God. The verb is "gave." The direct object is "true Church authority." The indirect object is "+ABL."

a. All authority comes from God.

b. No agent can produce an effect unless the effect is in the agent; a.k.a. nothing can give what it does not have.

c. God gave +ABL "true Church authority." How? Did God give authority to +ABL through his episcopal consecration or because he set up the SSPX? That is easily answered. He gave it to +ABL through his episcopal consecration.

d. The adjectival phrase "dying breath of," modifies the noun "authority," which is itself modified by the adjective "true." Thus +W would have us admit of the differences between "true" and "false" authority, and "living" and "dying" authority; though he gives us no teaching on the distinctions, only sets them up as existing.

Nor does he explain how, why, or which "true authority" is being modified by the adjectival phrase "dying breath of." Is it the true authority of Popes and Bishops, of +ABL, of the "SSPX Bishops," of the "SSPX Resistance Bishop," some or all of the above?

If you are confused by this EC, then perhaps it is because you retain some vestige of common sense. He never explains his meanings with precision; and that is a failure to write like a Catholic, let alone like a priest or a Bishop.

7. Here is another question: Did +ABL lose his "true Church authority" when he consecrated four bishops and because he consecrated four bishops? If we "read into" what is said in this EC, the answer is no, but it is a submerged and obscured "no."

+W poses the question, "Why should he give it again?" Here it is in context: "God gave the dying breath of true Church authority to Archbishop Lefebvre, whose successors have cruelly abused it. Why should he give it again? The crisis of the Church has far advanced between the 1970’s and the 2010’s."

More unpacking is necessary. +W mentions +ABL's successors in a way that justifies the following inference: What +ABL had - true Church authority - he gave to his successors: An agent produces effects that it contains within itself; a.k.a. it has the power to give what it has.

Nothing in +W's verbiage expresses any doubt that +ABL gave "true Church authority" to his successors. He indirectly affirms that +ABL's successors have "true Church authority," which they received from +ABL, by accusing them of having "cruelly abused" it.

+W entirely skips over the arguments for supplied jurisdiction to justify 25 years of SSPX expansion activities, including his own. Not calling supplied jurisdiction into question, we have to assume that his entire position rests on the implications of his idea of "cruel abuse of true authority."

8. So the question is now presented: Does cruel abuse of ecclesiastical authority metaphysically annihilate it? If the answer is "yes," then the sedevacantist position is correct. There is now no pope and only a few bishops left in the world. Of course, +W is staunchly not SV. In virtue of this, he has to affirm that the "true Church authority" of a BXVI and an FI continues in being.

If he affirms this, and also affirms that +ABL passed on to his successors "true Church authority," then he cannot simultaneously affirm that their "cruel abuse" of this authority metaphysically annihilates it. By his own reckoning, everyone gets to retain their "true Church authority," the bishops and Pope through actual jurisdiction, and he and his three fellow bishops through supplied jurisdiction. By his own reckoning, even "rats" can have "true church authority."

9. This leads into the next question: Does God take away what He has once given? No. Holy Orders are forever, and, as we have seen, authority remains even in those who abuse it. Therefore how can Bishop Williamson, with a straight face, ask the rhetorical question: Why should God give "true Church authority" again?

Does God "give again" what He never took away?

This EC is absurd!

Machabees · « **Reply #1 on:** June 29, 2013, 01:11:16 PM »

Cantatedomino,

It is nice to see that you are back in action to defend the true cause and inject the real issues for the need in this new crisis.

Bishop Williamson's words of "Non-servum" are a deficit the cause; not and asset.

The Resistance cannot gain ground and be stable on a "flop-flop" position as Bishop Williamson is expressing.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #2 on:** June 29, 2013, 01:13:05 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Cantatedomino,

It is nice to see that you are back in action to defend the true cause and inject the real issues for the need in the crisis.

Bishop Williamson's words of "Non-servum" are a deficit the cause; not and asset.

The Resistance cannot gain ground and be stable on a "flop-flop" position as Bishop Williamson is expressing.

I wouldn't dream of letting you fight all alone, O you good Knight of the Realm.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #3 on:** June 29, 2013, 01:14:50 PM »

Points to consider:

Taken from Fr. Laux's book entitled Church History

1. Regarding Ambrose of Milan: A meeting of the clergy and the people was called to elect the successor of Auxentius, Bishop of Milan. It was a tumultuous gathering, Arians and Catholics striving with might and main to obtain the nomination of their candidate. Ambrose, Governor of Liguria and Aemilia, appeared on the scene to restore order. Suddenly a voice, apparently that of a child, cried, "Ambrosium episcopum!" The people took up the cry, the clergy gave their consent, the Emperor Valentinian gave no objection.

But Ambrose tried to evade the episcopacy by every means in his power. He insisted that he was only a catechumen; he pretended to be a cruel and immoral man; he fled from the city and hid himself. (page 132)

2. Gregory the Great was literally forced on the Papal Throne by the unanimous voice of the clergy and the people. He sought to evade his election by every means within his power. Why? He himself, in a few vivid sentences, described the state of Rome and Italy at this period:

ST. GREGORY: "Sights and sounds of war meet us on every side. The cities are destroyed; the military stations broken up; the land devastated; the earth depopulated. No one remains in the country; scarcely any inhabitants in the towns; yet even the poor remains of human kind are still smitten daily and without intermission. Before our eyes some are carried away captive, some mutilated, some murdered. She herself, who once was the mistress of the world, we behold how Rome fares; worn down by manifold and incalculable distresses, the bereavement of citizens, the attack of foes, the reiteration of overthrows, where is her senate? Where are they who in former days reveled in her glory? where their pomps? their pride? Now no one hastens up to her for preferment; and so it is with other cities also; some places are laid waste by pestilence, others are depopulated by the sword, others are tormented by famine, and others are swallowed up by earthquakes." (pages 192-193)

I will explain why I am giving these quotes in the next post.

Zeitun · « **Reply #4 on:** June 29, 2013, 01:18:10 PM »

Thank you for this "unpacking" such as it is. I really like this analysis.

Has anyone considered the possibility that +W is no longer the author of EC?

Does anyone have any guesses of the REASON why he is acting this way?

Does he have a terminal illness and not telling anyone?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #5 on:** June 29, 2013, 02:23:35 PM »

Taken from the SSPX RESISTANCE DECLARATION ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EPISCOPAL CONSECRATIONS:

1. The self-nominated "SSPX Resistance" meets in Vienna, Virginia this weekend to celebrate "the 25th Anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic decision in 1988 to consecrate truly Catholic bishops for the defense of the Catholic Faith and for the preservation of valid Sacraments from the devastation of the Church wrought by the disastrous Second Vatican Council."

The essence of what they are celebrating is +ABL passing on what he had - tradidi quod et accepi - namely the generative principle of the Catholic Church on Earth.

Let's stop befuddling ourselves with all this somnambulizing semanticizing about lawfulness and authority. +ABL made bishops without papal mandate in order that they might make, not only, a bunch more priests, but, sooner or later, more bishops, in order to continuously populate the Church Militant with Catholic souls and a hierarchy.[/u] "Operation Survival" has only one meaning - to pass on to successive generations the power to keep the eternal Priesthood of Jesus Christ in operative existence on the Earth. +ABL's "Operation Survival" is identical to the generative principle of the Church.

Let us never forget that +ABL consecrated four bishops with the specific and explicit intention of keeping the Catholic priesthood in existence. And what does Catechism 101 teach us about the priesthood? Why that its fullness is in the Apostle. The priest does not possess the fullness of the priesthood; only the bishop. We may not, without violating reason and truth, affirm that +ABL intended for the SSPX to be in the priest-making but not the bishop-making business. For without bishop-making there is no "operation survival" of the priesthood; for in the bishop, and in the bishop alone, do we find priesthood's generative principle.

Therefore the crucial problem before Catholics this June weekend in 2013 is the absolute necessity of the continuation and augmentation of the generative principle as the sine qua non pre-condition for the defense of the Catholic Faith. If +ABL taught us anything, he taught us that, when the survival of the Church is threatened, precisely as it is today, then we make absolutely sure that the generative principle is passed on. We do not contracept and abort ourselves out of existence.

2. So what does the "SSPX Resistance," led by chief signatory Bishop Williamson, say about itself?

a) It says that it resolves together to do what it can to protect the Church and Society against this newly developed peril.

[NOTE: It admits a crisis.]

b) It says that it sets for itself the Archbishop’s program.

[NOTE: Though they do not state it, the Archbishop's program is nothing more or less than to unceasingly populate the Church by acting in accordance with, and passing on in succession, the generative principle of the Church.]

c) It says that, among other things, it will fight more than ever for the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ; that it will not lay down its weapons; that it will hold on; and, most importantly, that it will build while others are demolishing.

[QUESTION: If it will not immediately consecrate more bishops, in order to safeguard the family Jєωels, so to speak, can it not be said to be laying down its weapons before it takes up its fight? If +W dies and leaves them without seed, then what does all their hoopla amount to? Do they think that God does not expect them to help themselves with the help He gives them?]

d) It says it will rebuild the crumbled citadels and reconstruct the bastions of the Faith by:

i. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass;

ii. chapels;

iii. monasteries;

iv. large families; and

v. politicians.

It claims that it will reconstruct and restore the "whole tissue of Christian social life, Christian customs, and Christian reflexes."

Is the "SSPX Resistance" going to do all this with a handful of priests and one Bishop? It talks about performing a truly monumental work, but then it adds a devastating caveat - on the scale that God wants, at the time God wills. This means that they have big ideas and no real plan of action for making their vision a reality.

Nowhere in their Declaration do they discuss the essence of Operation Survival, which is the transmission of the transmitting principle. Interestingly, in their list of items necessary for the rebuilding and restoration they speak of, nowhere is to be found mention of the need for seminaries to make priests or the need for more than one bishop.

They are skirting the elephant in the room.

____________________________________________

St. Gregory the Great is known as the Apostle of England.

Taken from Fr. Laux's book Church History:

"From his monastery on the Caelian Hill the Pontiff [St. Gregory the Great] selected forty monks, whom he had himself trained in the spiritual life, and placing Augustine the prior at their head, he sent them forth to preach the word of god to the English nation. The missionaries left Rome in the autumn of 596. They spent the winter in northwestern Gaul, where Augustine, at the command of the Pope, received episcopal consecration. Then they crossed the channel and landed on the Isle of Thanet." (page 197)

No missionary activity of the Church, no restoration of all things in Christ, no rebuilding of the Church takes place without the generative principle in full effect. St. Gregory would not dream of sending Augustine into England without a set of family Jєωels.

My purpose in writing today is to put forth the proposition that we have to consecrate more bishops now.

If I am correct, then I have done a good work.

If I am incorrect, then I have still done a good work because error sharpens truth.

Let real, good, and godly reasons be brought forth why it is good and right, after the SSPX cινιℓ ωαr, for Catholics to refuse to replace what was lost as a casualty of war.

There is always rebuilding after a war. This Declaration says as much. We had four and now we are down to one. Let us hasten to replace what was lost.

And please save me from the pat rejoinders of canardism we've all had up to our ears. Give me real reasons.

Zeitun · « **Reply #6 on:** June 29, 2013, 02:27:04 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

and a hierarchy.[/u]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

Describe what that hierarchy should/will look like.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #7 on:** June 29, 2013, 02:30:57 PM »

Quote from: Zeitun

Quote from: cantatedomino
and a hierarchy.[/u]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

Describe what that hierarchy should/will look like.

You really know how to tire a guy out!

God bless you Zietun, but I need to go vacuum or something.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** June 29, 2013, 02:41:20 PM »

The "Resistance" has to have a clearer objective and what exactly is being resisted. The forum and various matters have become a joke and boring.

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** June 29, 2013, 02:44:11 PM »

Quote

The Resistance cannot gain ground and be stable on a "flop-flop" position as Bishop Williamson is expressing.

I don't agree the Bishop is holding a "flip-flop" position. The problem I have is people in the SSPX happy to remain in chapels. I conceded defeat with the lack of interest in my idea of hiring a hall yet Bishop Williamson offered Mass in a hall in Ireland.

It would be great to get the Bishop for a monthly Mass.

Sola Virtus Invicta · « **Reply #10 on:** June 29, 2013, 02:57:45 PM »

Dear "Cantantedomino",

Please read the full text of Bishop Williamson.

Straw, bricks, and patience...

I fully believe Bishop Williamson is relying on Divine Providence to be his guide. (Just as Archbishop Lefebvre did.) He will know when the time is right. There is more to Bishop Williamson than "meets the eye".

God bless you,
Curtis

P.S. Please do not forget. "They that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." Isaias 40:31

Zeitun · « **Reply #11 on:** June 29, 2013, 03:02:00 PM »

I'm trying to put all this together and it sounds as if some folks want a counter church set up with +W as the head of it? I cannot agree with that at all and I don't think he would do it.

But since I can't get a straight answer out of the "He isn't leading the Resistance" camp I have to draw my own conclusions.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #12 on:** June 29, 2013, 03:18:06 PM »

Quote from: Sola Virtus Invicta

Dear "Cantantedomino",

Please read the full text of Bishop Williamson.

Straw, bricks, and patience...

I fully believe Bishop Williamson is relying on Divine Providence to be his guide. (Just as Archbishop Lefebvre did.) He will know when the time is right. There is more to Bishop Williamson than "meets the eye".

God bless you,
Curtis

P.S. Please do not forget. "They that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." Isaias 40:31

God bless you and thank you for your words.

Machabees · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2013, 03:43:50 PM »

Cantatedomino,

Good job.

I will add also amongst the "resisters" of the Resistance, that even the "automation" on this Cathinfo site is trying to resist.

I have tried many times to give you a "thumbs up" on your recent posts, and in this thread it will not let me.

When I do, it puts up a banner that says:

Quote

Might as well get out the pom-poms!

I'm sure cantatedomino appreciates your support, but let's give others a turn.

Continue

I then click "continue" and no thumb's up is attributed to you.

However, I can click on a "thumbs up or down" on someone else's post; but it will not let me do so to yours.

Hmmm.

I will try again later. We will see.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2013, 03:48:34 PM »

Definitely try it again later. How very curious.