Factions colliding inside the trad-ecumenist Fake resistance
Apr 22, 2018 21:19:35 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 21:19:35 GMT
"I can't say that the Resistance is equal to the Catholic Faith itself."
(Matthew, Cathinfo Owner, April 22, 2018)
(Matthew, Cathinfo Owner, April 22, 2018)
What an unbelievable statement. If anyone else said that, it would be well misguided, however, that was declared by a prominent false resistance supporter, the side arm of Bishop Zendejas in fact, who claims official status and is the spokesperson for the false resistance. This speaks volumes to the crisis at large and in specific of the pulpits of the fake resistance manifesting the same dysfunction and hubris against God. Saying what he did is exactly what makes the fake resistance – FAKE! They know not what the truth is in front of them. Is this not Pilate’s sin for not discerning between truth and error? And Peter’s sin of denying the Lord when grace was given to him to see?
Are we at a time in the SSPX-crisis of tradition to question what is the Catholic Resistance and what is the Catholic Faith; are they not synonymous for 2,000 years? How is the thinking more ignorant than wise? This is a direct effect of Bishop Williamson’s teaching and indifferentism manifest for the last six years promoting this kind of confused pluralist thinking.
It’s clear the crisis in the Catholic Church is one of the absence of doctrinal clarity from Catholic bishops promoting either the novus ordo or those promoting neo-tradition leaving in its wake an anarchy of confusion pervading a void to placate indifferentism and lack of conviction. Without truth leaves only a religions sentiment wearing on souls to find among themselves a commonality they can agree on – the suffering of the human condition and ability, at least, to respect one another’s differences. How naturalistic. Is that what Christ instructed and died for? Is that what St. Paul fought for and wrote many Epistles about?
In one such example of confusion and a conflated attempt to adjust Matthew’s sponsors and enforce the trad-ecumenist thinking on his CI platform, Matthew penned a triage of posts today stating an exclusive right, self-proclaimed as it is, that he is voice of reason and reminds everyone he is “the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance.” In a stern attempt, he tried to regulate anyone out of line to his enforcement and straighten the path of what his four bishops teach for religious tolerance.
Perhaps this is so for the fake resistance, certainly not for the voice of the Catholic Church.
Now none of this means anything to us except to have compassion on others to help them come to the truth of what the Church teaches; to be missionary, even if we spend time trying to help Catholics to be Catholic.
Today is a vie of Matthew to control the narration of what is the false resistance; yesterday was one of the many other self-proclaimed spokespersons and regulation enforcers for the false resistance. Each fight within their sphere of trad-ecumenism trying to be on top dictating a narration what is and what is not closer to their own view and the four bishop’s thoughts. So they say. Yet, they are all right, says the four bishops and their priests. They believe all their follower’s views are good, some may be less and some better as Matthew described. The four bishops do promote all these variants, including sedevacantism, and only dislike when one of them professes a dogmatic conviction for one ecumenical “truth” over the other. They say you can be free to practice what you like: “The golden rule is this. The absolute rule of rules seems to me be this. Do whatever you need to nourish your faith.” How can they all go wrong with that view of universal salvation?
So religious freedom and religious tolerance gains the most profit. Matthew described this too:
The first rule of success in any business is: define your market. Who are you trying to reach? Our market is a thin sliver of serious minded, integral Catholics, who are principled enough to leave the SSPX and assist at Mass only once a month (on average) and homeschool our children, but not proactive, obsessed with theology (and solving all mysteries/problems), or hotheaded enough to embrace sedevacantism.
Returning to Matthews triage, he states the denominator for the false resistance is:
• Everyone is catholic,
• Everyone can think,
• Therefore, what everyone thinks is catholic.
Resulting for them that everyone can do as they want as long as they accept each as “Catholics” and there are “higher degrees” of what is catholic “expression” is held in different and opposed “Catholic groups” -- so everyone should put aside their view of doctrine as it may not be the right choice and get just along. Pure ecumenism!
EXCEPTING however for Matthew and the rest of the false resistance, there is no tolerance for the “Pfeiffer group”, he says. They are somehow not included, though they are catholic, they do not accept the theme of the four bishop’s view of trad-ecumenism Matthew enforces, thus they are not legitimate Catholics and are the lowest on the totem pole. (sic)
So the commonality and "religious truth" among these trad-ecumenists is they all accept they are Catholic regardless they have opposed doctrinal understandings. Is this not pure Protestantism? Protestants also get along with each other so long as they do not delineate and project those differences on each other; they are happy. But when a Catholic with the truth and conviction invites them to go up in conscience to the teaching of the Cross, hell breaks loose, like the fake resistance does with us. Oh well, we keep going.
So, GET ALONG is the motto of the false resistance.
Remembering also Matthew stated publicly he is "proud to be a Trad-ecumenist".
The gravy train of trad-ecumenism follows in Matthew’s triage:
(Emphasis with bold, underline, and in blue is mine)
www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/to-those-frustrated-with-non-resistance-catholics-on-cathinfo/?PHPSESSID=j5u577q4ji7iptrnicv9uq5md3
Matthew said:
Yesterday, Samuel got upset with the presence of non-Resistance supporters (sedevacantists in particular) on CathInfo. He contacted me by e-mail as well as posted on the forum about this.
Here is a slightly edited version of my response:
My disagreement with you [Samuel] is your definition of "evil".
We're talking about the Crisis in the Church. Sure, I prefer the Resistance position above all others, but many other positions exist as well, as you know all too well. What are we to think of THE CATHOLICS holding all those other positions? That they are not Catholic? God forbid that I should ever be so blind, proud, or rash.
There is massive confusion in the Church ("Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be dispersed") and CathInfo is the place to discuss and work out that confusion.
Also, I would say that CathInfo predates the Resistance by 6 years, and it might outlive it! CathInfo has been in business for 12 years. How many Traditional "works" live that long? CathInfo's first loyalty is to the TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT (a.k.a. "the Catholic Faith ") [What catholic faith? CI is proclaimed trad-ecumenist which is why it continues. It is the religion of the world today. So to say he continues is only riding the gravy train.] which must always exist until the end of the world. I can't say that the Resistance is equal to the Catholic Faith itself -- otherwise I make the same mistake as some dogmatic sedevacantists, or "conservative Catholics", that my position is the only one, and everyone else is going to Hell (unless they're invincibly ignorant, of course! I have to laugh every time someone gives that "out" for non-sedevacantist salvation, because people like us can hardly cling to an ignorance defense.)
The problem is that the Resistance is extremely tiny right now. Think about it: anyone with simplistic thinking or strong emotion (emotion stronger than reasoning ability) is already sedevacantist. Almost all of those who are more prudent, educated, circumspect, practical minded, etc. went with the SSPX (a thin sliver of these educated, prudent, non-hothead types became sedevacantist -- these are the sedevacantists you find on CathInfo, for the most part). But the majority of these SSPX Catholics, because of their prudence, practical considerations, etc. are sticking with the SSPX (place for Mass on Sunday, school for kids, wife can't homeschool, etc.) At least one man with a Resistance-themed blog is still attending SSPX, for crying out loud. And he knows the full deal about the sellout, Resistance, etc. I'll give him credit for at least supporting Masses of the Resistance 100% of the time they're available. (I'm not speaking about myself -- I don't have a blog, I have a FORUM, and I stopped attending the SSPX in May 2015)
The first rule of success in any business is: define your market. Who are you trying to reach? Our market is a thin sliver of serious minded, integral Catholics, who are principled enough to leave the SSPX and assist at Mass only once a month (on average) and homeschool our children, but not proactive, obsessed with theology (and solving all mysteries/problems), [Sic. What again is the reason we have saints, martyrs and confessors in the Catholic Church dying and preaching with conviction for one immutable truth?] or hotheaded enough to embrace sedevacantism.
That, my friends, is a very thin market!
Matthew
============================
The topic of "why is the Resistance so small" is a large one, and one short email can't do it justice. So I at least need to write a quick followup (since I don't have time for a book)
Take the group "Catholic" -- the majority are Novus Ordo, some shouldn't even be called Catholic (because they would actually reject the Catholic Faith if someone were to corner them and confront them about Church teaching, and the falseness of Vatican II) and a thin sliver of the whole are loosely traditional.
From that loosely traditional group, you have a bunch who think you need Roman permission to attend a Tridentine Mass -- they depart for the FSSP and other Indult groups.
You are left with Traditional Catholics. How many of them spend much time and energy on "church stuff" outside of getting ready for Mass on Sunday morning, attending Mass, and driving home? I think some Catholics believe that anything more would be "extreme", "overdoing it", being a "holy roller", or "if I'm going to go that far, I should have been a priest". I hate to say it, but only a thin remnant of the Traditional Catholic remnant expend any time or energy in reading, discussing, understanding the position, or really CARING AT ALL about matters of Faith.
You are left with a smaller subset of Integral (7 day a week) Traditional Catholics who not only consider themselves Catholic, but Catholicism would also qualify as a main hobby, insofar as they spend a lot of their free money and/or time on matters related to it (study, discussion, reading, volunteering, etc.) [sic] Everyone in this group develops principles (leading to favorite positions, favorite groups) due to their intense INTEREST and CARING about the subject.
But in this group of serious, Integral Trads, you still have large variations in terms of education, intelligence, strength of emotions, personal experience, and accidents of location or chance (I met a great priest with the SSPV...)
Some in this group decide (or "feel") that sedevacantism is the only way.
The rest of the group, getting pretty small by this point, decide with the more cautious, balanced (some would say prudent) Recognize and Resist position.
Now in days of yore, this would be the SSPX. But today, the SSPX is visibly losing it, which necessitates the creation of the Resistance or continuation of the old SSPX position. [sic] But how many SSPX attendees have actually left and attached themselves firmly to the Resistance? At my chapel (San Antonio, chapel dating back to 1975, population somewhere between 250 to 300) it's just my family that left -- unless you count 1 additional family that went Pfeifferite. One couple has started coming regularly to the last several (Bp. Zendejas) Masses here, so I'll give them credit at least for supporting the Resistance. There are a few other individuals/families which come to the Resistance chapel "part time", but they all still attend the SSPX.
At least 8 vehicles/famlies have left the San Antonio SSPX chapel to join the Indult, and let me point out this isn't one of those awesome-sermon-giving FSSP priests you may have heard about. No, this is INDULT, said by older priests who aren't very good at it. One of the priests there (no longer there) dabbled in the Charismatic movement as well as the Latin Mass. We're talking about a shared facility, too -- the same building is used for Novus Ordo (with particles -- or Particles -- of Communion in the Hand all over the floor)
When you consider all the obstacles -- the gauntlet -- that a Catholic has to run in order to arrive at the Resistance position, it boggles the mind.
Dimond Brothers
SSPX "obedience", pro-modern Rome, pro-accord propaganda
1962 Missale vs. 1954
Una Cum issue -- to mention the Pope during the Canon or not?
Novus Ordo Watch and other Sede sites
Other dogmatic, schismatic sedevacantists on the Net (Pope Michael, etc.)
Indult groups in every major city "we have to obey the Pope"
Pfeiffer cult
That last item is of particular note: of all those SSPX Catholics who "woke up" to the Crisis in the SSPX, how many of them went with Fr. Pfeiffer? Keep in mind that Fr. Pfeiffer was a Resistance pioneer. The most alert and awake SSPXers would have had no other choice if they wanted to resist the new SSPX orientation back in 2012 or 2013. Now it's true that some or many (most?) of these have since left Fr. Pfeiffer and joined the mainstream, worldwide Resistance under the 4 faithful bishops. But a lot of the principled, especially emotional, ones stuck with Fr. Pfeiffer to the present day. Even those who aren't 100% emotion might be convinced by Fr. Pfeiffer -- cult leaders are often very convincing in person, and that includes Fr. P. Catholics are naturally very hesitant to believe a priest could lie to them. So that also takes a noticeable number away from the main Resistance population.
Long story short, serious minded Catholics are likely to do research, form strong opinions, and many of those opinions are going to conflict and go different directions. It's also hard to give credit to your opponents without implicitly admitting that you might be wrong. If you give credit to Sedevacantists for example, then why? Is it because you want to give credit to those who fail to respect the Pope? Of course not. Or if it's because they are holding the true position, then you would obviously be holding an INCORRECT position, since yours is in conflict with theirs. So when I give any credit/respect to the Sedes, either I'm giving aid to enemies of the Catholic Pope, or I'm admitting I'm wrong. See the problem?
Of course I would offer a TERTIUM DATUR (a third option to solve the dilemma) -- that both sides can be of good will, but the Crisis is so confusing that we can't know for certain who is right. So we respect each other as Catholics even as we disagree with how to deal with (sometimes important) elements of the Crisis.
Matthew
===============================
If a group of 4 men were lost in the deep woods, trying to survive, not having perfect information about their situation (distance to nearest town, location of any other people in the area, etc.)
there might be disagreement about the best course of action.
Some might want to head north, some might want to head east, some might want to stay put and wait for a rescue team. Can the person who wants to head West accuse the man who wants to head North of bad will, or wanting to die? There is confusion and lack of full information; they all just want to survive, but they might have different ideas about how to best accomplish that. [Equals, there is no truth, so each do what one feels is right, because they are all right. Sic]
How this applies to the Crisis in the Church should be obvious.
Matthew said:
Yesterday, Samuel got upset with the presence of non-Resistance supporters (sedevacantists in particular) on CathInfo. He contacted me by e-mail as well as posted on the forum about this.
Here is a slightly edited version of my response:
My disagreement with you [Samuel] is your definition of "evil".
We're talking about the Crisis in the Church. Sure, I prefer the Resistance position above all others, but many other positions exist as well, as you know all too well. What are we to think of THE CATHOLICS holding all those other positions? That they are not Catholic? God forbid that I should ever be so blind, proud, or rash.
There is massive confusion in the Church ("Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be dispersed") and CathInfo is the place to discuss and work out that confusion.
Also, I would say that CathInfo predates the Resistance by 6 years, and it might outlive it! CathInfo has been in business for 12 years. How many Traditional "works" live that long? CathInfo's first loyalty is to the TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT (a.k.a. "the Catholic Faith ") [What catholic faith? CI is proclaimed trad-ecumenist which is why it continues. It is the religion of the world today. So to say he continues is only riding the gravy train.] which must always exist until the end of the world. I can't say that the Resistance is equal to the Catholic Faith itself -- otherwise I make the same mistake as some dogmatic sedevacantists, or "conservative Catholics", that my position is the only one, and everyone else is going to Hell (unless they're invincibly ignorant, of course! I have to laugh every time someone gives that "out" for non-sedevacantist salvation, because people like us can hardly cling to an ignorance defense.)
The problem is that the Resistance is extremely tiny right now. Think about it: anyone with simplistic thinking or strong emotion (emotion stronger than reasoning ability) is already sedevacantist. Almost all of those who are more prudent, educated, circumspect, practical minded, etc. went with the SSPX (a thin sliver of these educated, prudent, non-hothead types became sedevacantist -- these are the sedevacantists you find on CathInfo, for the most part). But the majority of these SSPX Catholics, because of their prudence, practical considerations, etc. are sticking with the SSPX (place for Mass on Sunday, school for kids, wife can't homeschool, etc.) At least one man with a Resistance-themed blog is still attending SSPX, for crying out loud. And he knows the full deal about the sellout, Resistance, etc. I'll give him credit for at least supporting Masses of the Resistance 100% of the time they're available. (I'm not speaking about myself -- I don't have a blog, I have a FORUM, and I stopped attending the SSPX in May 2015)
The first rule of success in any business is: define your market. Who are you trying to reach? Our market is a thin sliver of serious minded, integral Catholics, who are principled enough to leave the SSPX and assist at Mass only once a month (on average) and homeschool our children, but not proactive, obsessed with theology (and solving all mysteries/problems), [Sic. What again is the reason we have saints, martyrs and confessors in the Catholic Church dying and preaching with conviction for one immutable truth?] or hotheaded enough to embrace sedevacantism.
That, my friends, is a very thin market!
Matthew
============================
The topic of "why is the Resistance so small" is a large one, and one short email can't do it justice. So I at least need to write a quick followup (since I don't have time for a book)
Take the group "Catholic" -- the majority are Novus Ordo, some shouldn't even be called Catholic (because they would actually reject the Catholic Faith if someone were to corner them and confront them about Church teaching, and the falseness of Vatican II) and a thin sliver of the whole are loosely traditional.
From that loosely traditional group, you have a bunch who think you need Roman permission to attend a Tridentine Mass -- they depart for the FSSP and other Indult groups.
You are left with Traditional Catholics. How many of them spend much time and energy on "church stuff" outside of getting ready for Mass on Sunday morning, attending Mass, and driving home? I think some Catholics believe that anything more would be "extreme", "overdoing it", being a "holy roller", or "if I'm going to go that far, I should have been a priest". I hate to say it, but only a thin remnant of the Traditional Catholic remnant expend any time or energy in reading, discussing, understanding the position, or really CARING AT ALL about matters of Faith.
You are left with a smaller subset of Integral (7 day a week) Traditional Catholics who not only consider themselves Catholic, but Catholicism would also qualify as a main hobby, insofar as they spend a lot of their free money and/or time on matters related to it (study, discussion, reading, volunteering, etc.) [sic] Everyone in this group develops principles (leading to favorite positions, favorite groups) due to their intense INTEREST and CARING about the subject.
But in this group of serious, Integral Trads, you still have large variations in terms of education, intelligence, strength of emotions, personal experience, and accidents of location or chance (I met a great priest with the SSPV...)
Some in this group decide (or "feel") that sedevacantism is the only way.
The rest of the group, getting pretty small by this point, decide with the more cautious, balanced (some would say prudent) Recognize and Resist position.
Now in days of yore, this would be the SSPX. But today, the SSPX is visibly losing it, which necessitates the creation of the Resistance or continuation of the old SSPX position. [sic] But how many SSPX attendees have actually left and attached themselves firmly to the Resistance? At my chapel (San Antonio, chapel dating back to 1975, population somewhere between 250 to 300) it's just my family that left -- unless you count 1 additional family that went Pfeifferite. One couple has started coming regularly to the last several (Bp. Zendejas) Masses here, so I'll give them credit at least for supporting the Resistance. There are a few other individuals/families which come to the Resistance chapel "part time", but they all still attend the SSPX.
At least 8 vehicles/famlies have left the San Antonio SSPX chapel to join the Indult, and let me point out this isn't one of those awesome-sermon-giving FSSP priests you may have heard about. No, this is INDULT, said by older priests who aren't very good at it. One of the priests there (no longer there) dabbled in the Charismatic movement as well as the Latin Mass. We're talking about a shared facility, too -- the same building is used for Novus Ordo (with particles -- or Particles -- of Communion in the Hand all over the floor)
When you consider all the obstacles -- the gauntlet -- that a Catholic has to run in order to arrive at the Resistance position, it boggles the mind.
Dimond Brothers
SSPX "obedience", pro-modern Rome, pro-accord propaganda
1962 Missale vs. 1954
Una Cum issue -- to mention the Pope during the Canon or not?
Novus Ordo Watch and other Sede sites
Other dogmatic, schismatic sedevacantists on the Net (Pope Michael, etc.)
Indult groups in every major city "we have to obey the Pope"
Pfeiffer cult
That last item is of particular note: of all those SSPX Catholics who "woke up" to the Crisis in the SSPX, how many of them went with Fr. Pfeiffer? Keep in mind that Fr. Pfeiffer was a Resistance pioneer. The most alert and awake SSPXers would have had no other choice if they wanted to resist the new SSPX orientation back in 2012 or 2013. Now it's true that some or many (most?) of these have since left Fr. Pfeiffer and joined the mainstream, worldwide Resistance under the 4 faithful bishops. But a lot of the principled, especially emotional, ones stuck with Fr. Pfeiffer to the present day. Even those who aren't 100% emotion might be convinced by Fr. Pfeiffer -- cult leaders are often very convincing in person, and that includes Fr. P. Catholics are naturally very hesitant to believe a priest could lie to them. So that also takes a noticeable number away from the main Resistance population.
Long story short, serious minded Catholics are likely to do research, form strong opinions, and many of those opinions are going to conflict and go different directions. It's also hard to give credit to your opponents without implicitly admitting that you might be wrong. If you give credit to Sedevacantists for example, then why? Is it because you want to give credit to those who fail to respect the Pope? Of course not. Or if it's because they are holding the true position, then you would obviously be holding an INCORRECT position, since yours is in conflict with theirs. So when I give any credit/respect to the Sedes, either I'm giving aid to enemies of the Catholic Pope, or I'm admitting I'm wrong. See the problem?
Of course I would offer a TERTIUM DATUR (a third option to solve the dilemma) -- that both sides can be of good will, but the Crisis is so confusing that we can't know for certain who is right. So we respect each other as Catholics even as we disagree with how to deal with (sometimes important) elements of the Crisis.
Matthew
===============================
If a group of 4 men were lost in the deep woods, trying to survive, not having perfect information about their situation (distance to nearest town, location of any other people in the area, etc.)
there might be disagreement about the best course of action.
Some might want to head north, some might want to head east, some might want to stay put and wait for a rescue team. Can the person who wants to head West accuse the man who wants to head North of bad will, or wanting to die? There is confusion and lack of full information; they all just want to survive, but they might have different ideas about how to best accomplish that. [Equals, there is no truth, so each do what one feels is right, because they are all right. Sic]
How this applies to the Crisis in the Church should be obvious.
