Conciliar Popes – IV

Admin

Administrator
Conciliar Popes – IV


Of “mind-rot” did the Archbishop never speak?
With other words he too said minds are weak.

Many readers of these “Comments” presently find they are treating too often of sedevacantism, or of the position that the See of Rome is vacant, i.e. no Pope since Vatican II has been a real Pope. Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion in order not to lose his Catholic faith, let him hold it, because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6). But the opinion in itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the faith, and that is why these “Comments” are so insistent on discouraging sedevacantism. From an opinion it becomes all too easily a dogma, then the super-dogma and the measure of whether one is Catholic or not, from where it can slide into complete disbelief in the structural Church and into “home-aloning,” even to loss of one’s Catholic faith. Consider what Archbishop Lefebvre said (slightly adapted, and with emphasis added) in late 1979 in a conference to Écône seminarians:?—

“We must be prudent. It is obvious that if Pope Paul VI was not Pope, then the Cardinals he appointed are not Cardinals, so they cannot have elected John-Paul I, and they cannot have validly elected John-Paul II, that much is clear. I don’t think one can say such things. I think these are exaggerations, arguing in a manner too absolute and too rapid. I think the reality is more complex.

“I think that those who argue like this are in a certain way forgetting moral theology and ethics. They are being too speculative. Moral theology and ethics teach us to reason and to judge of people and their acts according to a whole context of circumstances which we must take into account: “Who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when” – all seven circumstances must be examined if we are to judge of the morality of an act. So we cannot remain in the pure stratosphere, one might say, in the realm of pure dogmatic the ology, by pronouncing, for instance, that such an act is heretical, therefore whoever did it is a heretic. But was this person aware of what he was doing, did he do it truly by himself, was he not deceived or forced into doing it?

“I think that here is how to solve the grave problems posed by John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul I. The latter is quoted in the newspapers as having said that he had thought at first that the Council’s new definition of religious liberty was unacceptable because the Church taught the opposite, but on further study of the Council document and all its contents he had realized that the Church was mistaken beforehand. Now I have no idea what were John-Paul I’s exact words, but to say that the Church could be mistaken on such a matter as religious liberty just boggles the mind! However, I put it down to liberal minds. Liberalism is like that. Liberalism both makes a statement and then contradicts it, and if one shows that wh at it said is not true, then it comes up with another ambiguous formula with a double meaning. The liberal mind is continually floating around, with expressions that are not clear, with things that can be taken two ways . . . . How many things there are like that in the Council, expressions equivocal and unclear, altogether typical of minds adrift, liberal minds . . . . As I see it, I think that the fact that the Pope is a liberal is enough to explain the situation in which we find ourselves.”

Bravo, your Excellency! Is not the Archbishop saying here exactly what these “Comments” have so often been saying? And the reason why these “Comments” have been saying it so often is because they see here the key to avoiding liberalism without having to resort to sedevacantism.

Kyrie eleison
.
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest

Bishop Williamson said:
Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion [of sedevacantism] in order not to lose his Catholic faith, let him hold it, because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6). But the opinion in itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the faith, and that is why these “Comments” are so insistent on discouraging sedevacantism. From an opinion it becomes all too easily a dogma, then the super-dogma and the measure of whether one is Catholic or not, from where it can slide into complete disbelief in the structural Church and into “home-aloning,” even to loss of one’s Catholic faith.

(...)

Liberalism both makes a statement and then contradicts it, and if one shows that wh at it said is not true, then it comes up with another ambiguous formula with a double meaning. The liberal mind is continually floating around, with expressions that are not clear, with things that can be taken two ways . . . . How many things there are like that in the Council, expressions equivocal and unclear, altogether typical of minds adrift, liberal minds . . . .
There are so many things that I like about Bishop Williamson: he is doctrinally correct, he is spot on about the errors of sedevacantism, he is versed in history, knows his Liturgy, pegs it on the Encyclicals, but when it comes to practical decisions in human terms, he is ambiguous and even in contradiction.

He cannot say that: [1]- "if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion [of sedevacantism] / [2]- in order not to lose his Catholic faith, / [3]- let him hold it, / [4]- because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6)", and then say in the next breath that sedevacantism is dangerous...even to loss of one’s Catholic faith.

When one has the Catholic faith, there is nothing dangerous about it; only foreign injections make it dangerous. Thus as sedevacantism is dangerous, it is a foreign entity to the teachings of the Perennial Catholic Faith.

[1] - How is it then that Bishop Williamson can say to someone to hold that opinion, when: A). it is dangerous, and B). that it is not of the Faith.

[2]- How is it that Bishop Williamson can follow and associate sedevacantism to the faith: "in order not to lose it"?

[3]- How is it then that he can then say to people who are subjectively following that error of sedevacantism to: "let him hold it." if they think it is best for themselves?

[4]- How is it then that he can then quote (Heb. XI, 6) to say that it is paramount and pleasing to God when it is not?
["But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. XI, 6)]


It is things like this, and his Nov. 5, 2014 Q&A conference in Canada that he needs to explain. To deliberately leave ambiguous statements causes disturbance and division in the house he says he dwells. As a Bishop of the Catholic Church, it is unbecoming to do so.

Like I said, I like many things of him, but this turmoil of ambiguity and his constant riding to be independent within the Catholic Resistance seems to be getting the better of him.

His article is very good; but that one unreasonable sentence spoils his whole effort. And it only empowers sedevacantists to stay where they are at.

 

Admin

Administrator
Machabees said:
Bishop Williamson said:
Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion [of sedevacantism] in order not to lose his Catholic faith, let him hold it, because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6). But the opinion in itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the faith, and that is why these “Comments” are so insistent on discouraging sedevacantism. From an opinion it becomes all too easily a dogma, then the super-dogma and the measure of whether one is Catholic or not, from where it can slide into complete disbelief in the structural Church and into “home-aloning,” even to loss of one’s Catholic faith.

(...)

Liberalism both makes a statement and then contradicts it, and if one shows that wh at it said is not true, then it comes up with another ambiguous formula with a double meaning. The liberal mind is continually floating around, with expressions that are not clear, with things that can be taken two ways . . . . How many things there are like that in the Council, expressions equivocal and unclear, altogether typical of minds adrift, liberal minds . . . .
There are so many things that I like about Bishop Williamson: he is doctrinally correct, he is spot on about the errors of sedevacantism, he is versed in history, knows his Liturgy, pegs it on the Encyclicals, but when it comes to practical decisions in human terms, he is ambiguous and even in contradiction.

He cannot say that: [1]- "if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion [of sedevacantism] / [2]- in order not to lose his Catholic faith, / [3]- let him hold it, / [4]- because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6)", and then say in the next breath that sedevacantism is dangerous...even to loss of one’s Catholic faith.

When one has the Catholic faith, there is nothing dangerous about it; only foreign injections make it dangerous. Thus as sedevacantism is dangerous, it is a foreign entity to the teachings of the Perennial Catholic Faith.

[1] - How is it then that Bishop Williamson can say to someone to hold that opinion, when: A). it is dangerous, and B). that it is not of the Faith.

[2]- How is it that Bishop Williamson can follow and associate sedevacantism to the faith: "in order not to lose it"?

[3]- How is it then that he can then say to people who are subjectively following that error of sedevacantism to: "let him hold it." if they think it is best for themselves?

[4]- How is it then that he can then quote (Heb. XI, 6) to say that it is paramount and pleasing to God when it is not?
["But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. XI, 6)]


It is things like this, and his Nov. 5, 2014 Q&A conference in Canada that he needs to explain. To deliberately leave ambiguous statements causes disturbance and division in the house he says he dwells. As a Bishop of the Catholic Church, it is unbecoming to do so.

Like I said, I like many things of him, but this turmoil of ambiguity and his constant riding to be independent within the Catholic Resistance seems to be getting the better of him.
The points raised here trouble me also. It seems that the good Bishop is trying to be kind at the expense of clarity and unambiguity. I do not understand why he keeps saying, 'I think...' Why is Bishop Williamson giving his opinion on the faith? Are we reduced to following opinions now? whether it be a sedevacantism opinion or any other? Some priests are leaving the n-SSPX - taking advantage of the confusion without declaring where they stand on Vat.II and Doctrine setting up their own priories/schools/retreat centres with the Bishop's blessing. For the sake of Charity and clear instruction we simple pewsitters need to know if Bishop Williamson is satisfied with the fact that priests are simply leaving the n-SSPX full stop. It can be misinterpreted unless he clarifies his position in relation to each priest who comes to him.

I have to confess to members of Cor Mariae, that I am not satisfied with that. We need a Shepherd to rescue us from adding more confusion /opinions. Are all the priests who are leaving the society placing themselves under the aegis of Bishop Williamson for their own individual undeclared reasons? Archbishop Lefebvre gave no opinions about the faith. He instructed emphatically that the laity have a right to know what is the mindset of their leaders.

Another point I have been wishing to raise for some time now is this tagline 'homealoner'. If through their instransigence our leaders do not instruct us under the one banner of The Way the Truth and The Life then what else but that the lost sheep are forced into a homealone position? Not knowing which priest to choose they are forced into going directly to their Lord, humbly, beseechingly. You may be very surprised to know that they are getting many graces increased by their acceptance of ridicule. Those who demonise these abandoned sheep have given the good Lord the opportunity to supply directly into their souls whatever graces they plead for. Mary makes sure of that. You simple folk who pray your rosaries and pray spiritual Masses in union with those being said in the world can be assured you are not alone! They find themselves surrounded by a vast congregation as if in a great cathedral where all the angels, saints, and fellow-adorers pray in unison to their dear Lord and Saviour.

Like their patron Archbishop Lefebvre, when asked if he felt alone, what did he answer? Alone? When he was in the company of all predecessor shepherds of the Church? Impossible! Those who exercise their faith create a pathway directly into the Sacred Heart of Jesus via the perpetual intercession of our Mother Mary.

If we are going to be kept as a loose federation then brave hearts know where to go and to Whom. We have all the desert fathers to show us the way.

Kathleen Donelly


 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Admin said:
... Are all the priests who are leaving the society placing themselves under aegis of Bishop Williamson for their own individual undeclared reasons? Archbishop Lefebvre gave no opinions about the faith. He instructed emphatically that the laity have a right to know what is the mindset of their leaders.
That is an interesting observation; having a "loose" independent network invites this type of thinking. As it is, it is already happening with Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia.

How are these priests going to replace themselves for the sake of the Church and the Faithful they say they want to do things for without seminarians and new priests? Who will they send their prospects to -Our Lady of Fatima Seminary- in Boston Kentucky? If so, then why the ridicule and attack towards the sspx-mc. If not, then why not be open about the doctrinal concerns and promote a seminary themselves? Because BW doesn't want to get involved in a seminary like he doesn't with the sspx-mc and the new french one under Bishop Faure?

Contradictions follow..."undeclared reasons".

 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
It prompts another question.

Why is it when Bishop Faure was consecrated, he immediately stated that he is going to begin a seminary in northern France; and Bishop Williamson has done nothing to effect growth for any organization and a seminary?

Why is it that Bishop Williamson has 20-years experience as a Rector of the sspx seminaries and is not involved with the present Catholic Resistance seminaries in the U.S and in the Philippines of which Archbishop Lefebvre had worked for and established for the continuity of the Priesthood and rights of our Lord Jesus Christ?

There are more questions of why than they are giving answers for.

 
A

ajnc

Guest
Machabees said:
It prompts another question.

Why is it when Bishop Faure was consecrated, he immediately stated that he is going to begin a seminary in northern France; and Bishop Williamson has done nothing to effect growth for any organization and a seminary?

Why is it that Bishop Williamson has 20-years experience as a Rector of the sspx seminaries and is not involved with the present Catholic Resistance seminaries in the U.S and in the Philippines of which Archbishop Lefebvre had worked for and established for the continuity of the Priesthood and rights of our Lord Jesus Christ?

There are more questions of why than they are giving answers for.
Has Bishop Williamson been asked to give lectures/talks at either of the two Resistance seminaries, even on a from-time-to-time basis?.
 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Machabees said:
It prompts another question.

Why is it when Bishop Faure was consecrated, he immediately stated that he is going to begin a seminary in northern France; and Bishop Williamson has done nothing to effect growth for any organization and a seminary?

Why is it that Bishop Williamson has 20-years experience as a Rector of the sspx seminaries and is not involved with the present Catholic Resistance seminaries in the U.S and in the Philippines of which Archbishop Lefebvre had worked for and established for the continuity of the Priesthood and rights of our Lord Jesus Christ?

There are more questions of why than they are giving answers for.
Has Bishop Williamson been asked to give lectures/talks at either of the two Resistance seminaries, even on a from-time-to-time basis?.
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>Yes, and even asked to reside and teach as a professor; but BW has verbally said that he only chooses to come on a 'visiting' basis; like he does with any other place he goes. The emphasis is that he is a Bishop of the Catholic Church, and as such, and more so because he says that he is a bishop and spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, we know that Archbishop Lefebvre was all about the faith and the continuity of the Priesthood and rights of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is about forming seminarians and building seminaries, etc.. Bishop Williamson has in his many Eleison Comments and publicly stated that he does NOT want to lead or get involved with any seminaries; only go around and give the Sacraments and conferences; to remain independent.

It is important to listen to his Nov. 5, 2014 conference in Canada. His disposition and following attitude sums it up.


 
A

ajnc

Guest
Thank you. It looks like Bishop Faure will have to do the job.
 
N

nobody

Guest
The writing appeared on the wall long ago : apparitionitis, 'Dickens', loose association theories, weak SV arguments tricklefed in weekly soap opera installments, fuzzy orange lights..

We're running out of men !
 
N

nobody

Guest
<div class="quote" source="/post/6761/thread" timestamp="1436712266" author="@ajnc"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 12, 2015 14:44:26 GMT @ajnc said:</div>Thank you. It looks like Bishop Faure will have to do the job.<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>Sorry to say, but don't hold your breath. He's seeing too much orange as well..
 

unbrandable

Well-Known Member
Nobody said:
<div class="quote" source="/post/6761/thread" timestamp="1436712266" author="@ajnc"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 12, 2015 14:44:26 GMT @ajnc said:</div>Thank you. It looks like Bishop Faure will have to do the job.
Sorry to say, but don't hold your breath. He's seeing too much orange as well..
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>
What makes you say this?



 

Admin

Administrator
Mons. Williamson's successful visit to the United States accompanied by two Priests : Father Zendejus and Fr. Angelico OP from the Dominicans of Avrille.

Father Zendejas organized a great conference for the Resistance in Connecticut. Father Marie Dominique P. Angelico OP and OP, both of the Dominican Monastery of Avrillé, France attended. It was also attended by Dr. David Allen White.
Are we to understand from this that Bishop Williamson agrees with the new Declaration published by the Dominicans of Avrille?

Non Possumus

 
D

Deleted member 149

Guest
Admin said:
Mons. Williamson's successful visit to the United States accompanied by two Priests : Father Zendejus and Fr. Angelico OP from the Dominicans of Avrille.

Father Zendejas organized a great conference for the Resistance in Connecticut. Father Marie Dominique P. Angelico OP and OP, both of the Dominican Monastery of Avrillé, France attended. It was also attended by Dr. David Allen White.
Are we to understand from this that Bishop Williamson agrees with the new Declaration published by the Dominicans of Avrille?

Non Possumus
That is a good point.

It is because Bishop Williamson is endorsing wishy-washy positions of Frs. Zendejas and Garcia and funding them, and now endorsing the new wishy-washy Dominican declaration that makes our questions fair to question his motives as a prelate. Archbishop Lefebvre said that we faithful have a strict right to know the doctrine of our priests.

This yellow light stuff is deadly.

 
N

nobody

Guest
unbrandable said:
Nobody said:
Sorry to say, but don't hold your breath. He's seeing too much orange as well..
What makes you say this?
The reply he gave us when asked directly about his position in this matter.
 
N

nobody

Guest
Nobody said:
The reply he gave us when asked directly about his position in this matter.
What precisely do you mean by "orange"?<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>Either you're not the 'ecclesiamilitans' I know, or you're playing tricks.

Orange :

Neither red nor green,
but something in between.

The SSPX is full of rot,
but stay away we must not.

Avoiding them may be fine for you,
But others can make their own choice too.

Oh yes, we must fight the modernism,
but don't be too firm, that's called extremism.

 
E

ecclesiamilitans

Guest
Nobody said:
<div class="quote" source="/post/6773/thread" timestamp="1436787540" author="@ecclesiamilitans"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 13, 2015 11:39:00 GMT @ecclesiamilitans said:</div>What precisely do you mean by "orange"?
Either you're not the 'ecclesiamilitans' I know, or you're playing tricks.

Orange :

Neither red nor green,
but something in between.

The SSPX is full of rot,
but stay away we must not.

Avoiding them may be fine for you,
But others can make their own choice too.

Oh yes, we must fight the modernism,
but don't be too firm, that's called extremism.

<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>Red + yellow makes orange. I like orange better but red best.
 
N

nobody

Guest
Nobody said:
Either you're not the 'ecclesiamilitans' I know, or you're playing tricks.

Orange :

Neither red nor green,
but something in between.

The SSPX is full of rot,
but stay away we must not.

Avoiding them may be fine for you,
But others can make their own choice too.

Oh yes, we must fight the modernism,
but don't be too firm, that's called extremism.
Red + yellow makes orange. I like orange better but red best.<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>I believe God likes anything BUT orange :

Revelation : 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

The time for orange excuses is long gone. You cannot go to war with wimps, no matter how smart and well spoken they are.
 
E

ecclesiamilitans

Guest
Nobody said:
<div class="quote" source="/post/6775/thread" timestamp="1436819332" author="@ecclesiamilitans"><div class="quote_body"><div class="quote_avatar_container"><div class="avatar-wrapper avatar_size_quote avatar-0">//images.proboards.com/v5/defaultavatar.png</div></div><div class="quote_header">Jul 13, 2015 20:28:52 GMT @ecclesiamilitans said:</div>Red + yellow makes orange. I like orange better but red best.
I believe God likes anything BUT orange :

Revelation : 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

The time for orange excuses is long gone. You cannot go to war with wimps, no matter how smart and well spoken they are.
<div class="quote_clear"></div></div></div>I agree that the time for orange or yellow excuses are long gone. However, orange is closer to red than is yellow.

I am a red lighter.
 

Admin

Administrator
Machabees said:
Admin said:
... Are all the priests who are leaving the society placing themselves under aegis of Bishop Williamson for their own individual undeclared reasons? Archbishop Lefebvre gave no opinions about the faith. He instructed emphatically that the laity have a right to know what is the mindset of their leaders.
That is an interesting observation; having a "loose" independent network invites this type of thinking. As it is, it is already happening with Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia.

How are these priests going to replace themselves for the sake of the Church and the Faithful they say they want to do things for without seminarians and new priests? Who will they send their prospects to -Our Lady of Fatima Seminary- in Boston Kentucky? If so, then why the ridicule and attack towards the sspx-mc. If not, then why not be open about the doctrinal concerns and promote a seminary themselves? Because BW doesn't want to get involved in a seminary like he doesn't with the sspx-mc and the new french one under Bishop Faure?

Contradictions follow..."undeclared reasons".
I suppose, strictly speaking then, that the priests who leave the n-SSPX for undeclared reasons would not come under the 'resistance' banner as it has been understood heretofore (?) because we do not know what they are resisting. Whereas with the SSPX-MC we know exactly what we are resisting. There is no guarantee that any priest who simply leaves the n-SSPX is not going to set up his only little community = protestantism. I hasten to add that because we do not know what the latter are resisting that it automatically equates with protestantism. No, however, it is incumbent on us to test the spirit by means of the doctrines of the Church. The Holy Spirit leaves us in no doubt; does not confuse or cloud over; speaks plainly and clearly...we are not left guessing or lazily hoping for the best just doing what this or that priest does or tells us to do. Surely, we each have to do our own homework. Cor Mariae, therefore, stands firmly with the SSPX-MC resistant priests prudently keeping at arm's length any priest/bishop/cardinal/pope/layman/woman who deviates one iota from, or fails to declare/fight for the perennial doctrines and teachings of the Church preceeding the Council of Vatican II.
 
Top