I believe Mr. McCusker has successfully defended his argument in this installment.
I would, however, make one nuance to the following argument:
“The “recognise and resist” position is one of systematic refusal to assent to the teaching of the man they recognise as the Roman Pontiff. For many advocates of this position, their “resistance” extends back beyond Francis to all papal claimants since Paul VI. That is, they have refused to give religious assent to the ordinary teaching of what they believe is the Church teaching for sixty years.”
It is important to recall that, at least as regards Resistance ecclesiology (but no longer the SSPX since 2012), they would say they have “one pope for two churches:” One conciliar, and one Catholic. When the pope teaches truth, he’s representing the Catholic Church, and these teachings (howsoever few and far between) are accepted. But when he teaches error, he’s representing the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church, and this is what is being systematically rejected.
It is in this way that such resistance is justified (ie., they’re not rejecting the proximate rule of faith, but a counterfeit entity when by error Peter represents the false conciliar church).
Rather slippery, but It may still be a moot observation, since at the end of the day, “Peter” remains a public heretic regardless of which church one assigns his teachings to.
Interestingly, back in 2012-2014, +Fellay was busy denigrating the conciliar church/Catholic Church distinction as part of his quid pro quo compromises with Rome, arguing instead that the modernist “official” church was the Catholic Church. So R&R can pick their poison: Either one maintains the Frankenchurch theory which leaves a public heretic as pope, or one rejects the conciliar/Catholic distinction, which once again leaves a public heretic as pope.
Reminded me of my toddler asking me whether I’d rather be crushed by an python, or eaten by a lion.
Excellent article. "R&Rs" who read this will have no valid excuse for rejecting what it says & what popes, especially Leo XIII & Pius XII, have authoritatively taught.
"He who loves father or mother, etc. [or their social relationships or financial security] more than me is not worthy of me...." - Mt 10:37-38
But the problem, of course, is that many of them will not be disposed to receive this truth, because as conditioned dogmatic anti-sedevacantists, they have a priori precluded this explanationas as a defense mechanism, which in their current frame of mind perceives it as a threat to the faith to be resisted.
But I believe that for those God sees putting in the effort to understand, for the love of Him and His truth, one way or another He will direct things in such a way that this disposition will change (and that’s where sites like WM Review will make their greatest contributions, tilling the fertile soils of well-disposed souls).
This book by by Cardinal Newman discusses the problem of inherited prejudice in religion like no other:
Thanks. And I should have added that for many there are varying degrees of invincible ignorance.
When Jesus said that in the latter times (our times) "even the elect (if it were possible) will be deceived," I believe it IS possible since many in the V2 church are probably in good faith, not able to perceive the truth that the V2 church is counterfeit.
To recognise Christ's Vicar only to resist his authority is like recognising an oasis in the desert if you are dying of thirst and, with great indignination, refusing to drink because you are certain God has poisoned the well.
I accept that SJ's R&R ecclesiology observations are accurate but, per the impeccable reasoning of the article, who then is to decide which pronouncements are true (Catholic church) and which false (conciliar church) if not the poor confused individual?
The problem I see with R n R is, that no matter what is presented to them as proof that the men they look up to (or down to) as their leaders are, and have been, false popes, will be rejected. Even should Leo himself come out and say, "I'm a false pope and so we're my last six predecessors, " they wouldn't believe him. If Leo were to read the third secret of Fatima and it showed that the Blessed Virgin had revealed a long line of consecutive antipopes, they still wouldn't believe it.
As long as we have a pope, even a heretic pope and our viewers, listeners and patreon supporters are happy then so are we.
I believe Sean Johnson's reply above explains why this is the case. It is sad to see so many intelligent people in the R&R treat this issue as if they were incapable. Too many of them have so much invested, and I am not talking about money, but time, family situations, established principles, prayers, etc... They just can't make the turn and accept that they had it wrong from the get go. I have many friends who would rival me in intelligence, yet they can't make a sound argument for their R&R position, and they refuse to even try these days. You can present quote after quote from the Church concerning the things this article addresses and they just scoff it off, and why not?, they are already comfortable in resisting authority. They see the Church as their cross, something which Fr. Faber speaks unfavorably about, and they act as if they are receiving a white martyrdom.
This series has been incredibly informative, Part IV in particular. Seems to me the best way for Matt Gaspers to respond is to say, "I clearly misunderstood the proximate rule of faith, an error which led me down a false path. I wish my error hadn't been so publicly exposed, but I am grateful to recognize it, correct it, and hope others will learn from it. Thank you."
I believe Mr. McCusker has successfully defended his argument in this installment.
I would, however, make one nuance to the following argument:
“The “recognise and resist” position is one of systematic refusal to assent to the teaching of the man they recognise as the Roman Pontiff. For many advocates of this position, their “resistance” extends back beyond Francis to all papal claimants since Paul VI. That is, they have refused to give religious assent to the ordinary teaching of what they believe is the Church teaching for sixty years.”
It is important to recall that, at least as regards Resistance ecclesiology (but no longer the SSPX since 2012), they would say they have “one pope for two churches:” One conciliar, and one Catholic. When the pope teaches truth, he’s representing the Catholic Church, and these teachings (howsoever few and far between) are accepted. But when he teaches error, he’s representing the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church, and this is what is being systematically rejected.
It is in this way that such resistance is justified (ie., they’re not rejecting the proximate rule of faith, but a counterfeit entity when by error Peter represents the false conciliar church).
Rather slippery, but It may still be a moot observation, since at the end of the day, “Peter” remains a public heretic regardless of which church one assigns his teachings to.
Interestingly, back in 2012-2014, +Fellay was busy denigrating the conciliar church/Catholic Church distinction as part of his quid pro quo compromises with Rome, arguing instead that the modernist “official” church was the Catholic Church. So R&R can pick their poison: Either one maintains the Frankenchurch theory which leaves a public heretic as pope, or one rejects the conciliar/Catholic distinction, which once again leaves a public heretic as pope.
Reminded me of my toddler asking me whether I’d rather be crushed by an python, or eaten by a lion.
"...one pope for two churches" = "one tree for two fruits". It mocks God.
Excellent article. "R&Rs" who read this will have no valid excuse for rejecting what it says & what popes, especially Leo XIII & Pius XII, have authoritatively taught.
"He who loves father or mother, etc. [or their social relationships or financial security] more than me is not worthy of me...." - Mt 10:37-38
Objectively, yes.
But the problem, of course, is that many of them will not be disposed to receive this truth, because as conditioned dogmatic anti-sedevacantists, they have a priori precluded this explanationas as a defense mechanism, which in their current frame of mind perceives it as a threat to the faith to be resisted.
But I believe that for those God sees putting in the effort to understand, for the love of Him and His truth, one way or another He will direct things in such a way that this disposition will change (and that’s where sites like WM Review will make their greatest contributions, tilling the fertile soils of well-disposed souls).
This book by by Cardinal Newman discusses the problem of inherited prejudice in religion like no other:
https://archive.org/details/a625662600newmuoft/page/n1/mode/1up
Thanks Sean and Rosary Knight!
Thanks. And I should have added that for many there are varying degrees of invincible ignorance.
When Jesus said that in the latter times (our times) "even the elect (if it were possible) will be deceived," I believe it IS possible since many in the V2 church are probably in good faith, not able to perceive the truth that the V2 church is counterfeit.
"For many advocates of this position, their 'resistance' extends back beyond Francis to all papal claimants since Paul VI."
We should recall that John XXIII promoted religious liberty in his encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963), which a true pope could never do.
To recognise Christ's Vicar only to resist his authority is like recognising an oasis in the desert if you are dying of thirst and, with great indignination, refusing to drink because you are certain God has poisoned the well.
Thanks for continuing this series.
I accept that SJ's R&R ecclesiology observations are accurate but, per the impeccable reasoning of the article, who then is to decide which pronouncements are true (Catholic church) and which false (conciliar church) if not the poor confused individual?
Thank you for an inspirational article.
'Argumentum praeclare ratiocinatum'
The problem I see with R n R is, that no matter what is presented to them as proof that the men they look up to (or down to) as their leaders are, and have been, false popes, will be rejected. Even should Leo himself come out and say, "I'm a false pope and so we're my last six predecessors, " they wouldn't believe him. If Leo were to read the third secret of Fatima and it showed that the Blessed Virgin had revealed a long line of consecutive antipopes, they still wouldn't believe it.
As long as we have a pope, even a heretic pope and our viewers, listeners and patreon supporters are happy then so are we.
I believe Sean Johnson's reply above explains why this is the case. It is sad to see so many intelligent people in the R&R treat this issue as if they were incapable. Too many of them have so much invested, and I am not talking about money, but time, family situations, established principles, prayers, etc... They just can't make the turn and accept that they had it wrong from the get go. I have many friends who would rival me in intelligence, yet they can't make a sound argument for their R&R position, and they refuse to even try these days. You can present quote after quote from the Church concerning the things this article addresses and they just scoff it off, and why not?, they are already comfortable in resisting authority. They see the Church as their cross, something which Fr. Faber speaks unfavorably about, and they act as if they are receiving a white martyrdom.
"They see the Church as their cross..." So true.
This series has been incredibly informative, Part IV in particular. Seems to me the best way for Matt Gaspers to respond is to say, "I clearly misunderstood the proximate rule of faith, an error which led me down a false path. I wish my error hadn't been so publicly exposed, but I am grateful to recognize it, correct it, and hope others will learn from it. Thank you."
Eagerly awaiting Part V which is really the crux of the issue.