Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: andy on July 02, 2021, 09:18:04 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21dwU6aK6Cc
-
That makes me even more convinced of the Feeneyite position ...
-
Why?
-
He fits this to a "T".....
"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it - while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so". - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
-
Why?
Just because it’s coming from Fr. Robinson.
I’ll analyze it here later.
He starts by characterizing it as an “overreaction” just like sedevacantism. That simply assumes it’s wrong out of the gate and somehow based on emotional rather than theological considerations. I’m sure the SSPX holds the Resistance also to be overreaction. Anything that is to the right of their compromise position, where they deliberately sit on the fence between Tradition and the Conciliar Church they brush off as overreaction. Perhaps theirs is an underreaction.
Then he cites the Church’s “condemnation” in Suprema Haec. So he gives more weight to this dubious letter that was never published by the Vatican ... but only by Fr. Feeney’s chief nemesis ... as being more authoritative than an Ecuмenical Council? If the latter could contain error, then a fortiori so could SH.
-
Next he attacks Fr. Feeney for his disobedience ... which is laughable coming from a Traditional Catholic, the very existence of whose organization is practically founded on the maxim “faith is greater than obedience.” Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience was heroic while Fr. Feeney’s worthy of condemnation.
Robison takes the side of Fr. Feeney’s superiors. When I have time, I’ll actually cite these superiors and the unbelievable amount of heresy they were spewing.
-
Father Feeney was right. During his time communists were infiltrating the Church at fast speed. Fast forward to 2021 communist Jesuits including Bergolio are now leading souls to hell at a rapid pace with all religions are equal and lead to heaven. The Jesuits take public stage to promote sodomy, abortion, and now genocide. It isn’t normal for a Jesuit to become Pope. Rome is outside the Church when it works for global communists pushing kovid shots designed for global genocide. Any religious organization that doesn’t fight against these jabs is outside the Church. Good can’t co exist with evil. So when is Father Paul going to do a video series on bergolio, Benedict and the sodomites who are in a state of apostasy and are outside of the true Church. Jesus is our salvation. Jesus Christ now and forever!!!
-
That makes me even more convinced of the Feeneyite position ...
Yeah, Fr. Robinson attacking something does tend to make one sympathetic for that "something".
He also attacks Creationism and the Resistance.
AND his type fundamentally attacks the Archbishop. Any "respect" they have for +ABL is mere lip service, calculated to deceive the unwashed masses in the pews. Remember Bishop Fellay who personified this -- he believed he would succeed where +ABL failed. HE (+Fellay) will save the Church, in his mind. He sees himself as wiser, better, smarter than +ABL. Never forget that.
It's not just +Fellay who has that proud attitude, either. All those on the "accordista" side -- basically MOST of the current neo-SSPX, except for a minority that is just weak and keeping their heads down, feel this way.
-
Fr. Robinson is coming to cover for Fr. Dean on the 17th at my parish. I'm not particularly excited about it.
-
Father Feeney was right. During his time communists were infiltrating the Church at fast speed.
Yes, he was ... even if one disagrees with his positon on BoD. Most people don't know that that this came later and was tangential to his main battle.
Cushing: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." NOT, well, you have to understand EENS as the Church understands it.
Father Keleher, President of Boston College: "Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his doctrine on salvation… He (Fr. Feeney) kept repeating such phrases as ‘There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.'" ... Had this Jesuit never heard that this "phrase" has been solemnly defined by the Church as dogma.
THIS is what Fr. Feeney was dealing with. Also, his biggest enemies in Boston were the Jews. Cushing's sister was married to a Jew.
-
“.....Spellman’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is no
secret. What I learned from Engel’s book — which is much better researched and argued than the bσɱb-throwing title would lead you to believe — is that Cardinal William O’Connell, archbishop of Boston from 1907 to 1944, was gαy. So too was Cardinal John Wright, made an auxiliary bishop of Boston in 1947 under O’Connell’s successor, Cardinal Richard CUSHING. Wright went on to become the Bishop of Worcester, Mass. Engel writes:......
“.....Cushing was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite, as he softened the traditional confrontation between the Catholic Irish and the Protestant upper-class. He built useful relationships with Jews, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.....”.
Most holy priests of the past and present have been persecuted by sơdơmit hierarchy within the Church.
-
Nobody serious about loving God and His Church is overreacting to modernism. Most Catholics aren't reacting at all.
-
Yeah, Fr. Robinson attacking something does tend to make one sympathetic for that "something".
He also attacks Creationism and the Resistance.
AND his type fundamentally attacks the Archbishop. Any "respect" they have for +ABL is mere lip service, calculated to deceive the unwashed masses in the pews. Remember Bishop Fellay who personified this -- he believed he would succeed where +ABL failed. HE (+Fellay) will save the Church, in his mind. He sees himself as wiser, better, smarter than +ABL. Never forget that.
It's not just +Fellay who has that proud attitude, either. All those on the "accordista" side -- basically MOST of the current neo-SSPX, except for a minority that is just weak and keeping their heads down, feel this way.
I could not find fr. Robinson attacking anybody in this video. Just presenting some dry facts from fr. Feeney life. (fr. Robinson puts me off on many occasions too but this does not matter much)
Also the letter signed by (including) A. Ottaviani https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076 does not leave any room for an interpretation here, as far as"extra ecclesiam nulla salus" goes.
-
That makes me even more convinced of the Feeneyite position ...
What they did to their children is horrifying. There's just no justification for that and why did Fr. Feeney permit it?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21dwU6aK6Cc
Observation/Question: Why, as Fr. Robinson gets older, do his eyes become smaller and his nose larger? Is this the Pinnochio syndrome? :popcorn:
When we consider all the underhanded propaganda the SSPX fathers have initiated, we should be concerned about their special place in Hell.
1. Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Laisney wrote an anti Father Feeney book in 2001.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2Fcy8AAOSwx6pYpWAX%2Fs-l300.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
It was full of shoddy scholarship.
The over achiever authors were too busy to make sound arguments.
More hit piece propaganda I can think of:
2. 1980 Fr. Cekada's attack on the Order of St. John, who supported Father Wathen.
Very poor scholarship, and effectively debunked by Father Wathen a year later.
3. Attack on Thuc line priests and Bishops. Ongoing doctrine at the SSPX to minimize TLM competition.
4. 1984 "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"
Inserted into the book was "Universal Salvation via BOD, BOB and intrinsic Baptism inscribed on every man's heart". Rahner bunk.
5. 2008 Two articles in the Angelus shilling for the validity of the Novus ordo bastard sacramanent of Holy Orders.
5. 2009 Attack on +W and anti-h0Ɩ0cαųst movement.
6. 2010: Discovery of a Jєωιѕн mossad operative (Max Krah) within the top ranks of the SSPX.
7. 2015 Siscoe & Salza books: Total hireling bullsh*t propaganda, attempting to justify reconciliation with the Pachamama pope.
8. Increased attacks on SSPX resistance and independent TLM venues to divert criticism from SSPX regularization with newChurch.
If you can think of others, please add them.
-
What they did to their children is horrifying. There's just no justification for that and why did Fr. Feeney permit it?
Not sure what book you are referring to?
I had read a book written by an ex member of Father Feeney's Slaves of the Immaculate Heart apostolate.
In his final chapter of his horrifying account, he explained how he drove out West in a van, picked up a woman, had with sex her and was "liberated" from the Feeenyites.
This is when we knew the book was a hit piece written by a jew. :laugh1:
The jews even made a B-rated horror movie about Father Feeney's apostolate.
-
Observation/Question: Why, as Fr. Robinson gets older, do his eyes become smaller and his nose larger?
Your nose (and ears) are made of cartilage. Over time, gravity causes them to sag. I've also heard people say they continue to grow but I'm not sure of that.
-
Observation/Question: Why, as Fr. Robinson gets older, do his eyes become smaller and his nose larger? Is this the Pinnochio syndrome? :popcorn:
When we consider all the underhanded propaganda the SSPX fathers have initiated, we should be concerned about their special place in Hell.
1. Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Laisney wrote an anti Father Feeney book in 2001.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2Fcy8AAOSwx6pYpWAX%2Fs-l300.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
It was full of shoddy scholarship.
The over achiever authors were too busy to make sound arguments.
More hit piece propaganda I can think of:
2. 1980 Fr. Cekada's attack on the Order of St. John, who supported Father Wathen.
Very poor scholarship, and effectively debunked by Father Wathen a year later.
3. Attack on Thuc line priests and Bishops. Ongoing doctrine at the SSPX to minimize TLM competition.
4. 1984 "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"
Inserted into the book was "Universal Salvation via BOD, BOB and intrinsic Baptism inscribed on every man's heart". Rahner bunk.
5. 2008 Two articles in the Angelus shilling for the validity of the Novus ordo bastard sacramanent of Holy Orders.
5. 2009 Attack on +W and anti-h0Ɩ0cαųst movement.
6. 2010: Discovery of a Jєωιѕн mossad operative (Max Krah) within the top ranks of the SSPX.
7. 2015 Siscoe & Salza books: Total hireling bullsh*t propaganda, attempting to justify reconciliation with the Pachamama pope.
8. Increased attacks on SSPX resistance and independent TLM venues to divert criticism from SSPX regularization with newChurch.
If you can think of others, please add them.
9. 2011 Bp. Fellay's suppression of the publication of +ABL's 238 Sermons, the resulting lawsuit against Father Schoonbroodt.
Then, the SSPX altercation of theses sermons, as discovered by SSPX Germany and reported by former Cathinfo member, Ethelred.
-
Your nose (and ears) are made of cartilage. Over time, gravity causes them to sag. I've also heard people say they continue to grow but I'm not sure of that.
At this growth rate, when the "Big Bang" priest dies, they'll have to strap his nose down to his chest to close his coffin.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F320c9f13ecf4f3b44f9354823882bdb5%2Ftenor.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
-
That makes me even more convinced of the Feeneyite position ...
Just because it’s coming from Fr. Robinson.
If I come to a conclusion on something due to evidence, finding some authority I respect agreed with me (that I didn't know about previously) might be additional evidence and confirm my conclusion.
But I just don't see an impact if I find that someone I don't respect opposes my conclusion. So what?
-
Not sure what book you are referring to?
The decision to raise their children communally with no involvement from the parents is bizarre.
-
The decision to raise their children communally with no involvement from the parents is bizarre.
Give the whole story. During these battles with the Church liberals attacking them, many of the members of St. Benedict Center felt drawn to the religious life, indeed, to beginning an Order dedicated to defending the Faith and orthodox doctrines. They knew what was coming to the Church. Many of these people were married. Some had children. As has happened with other religious, including saints, with the agreement of each spouse, they began the MICM. Fr. Leonard Feeney was the Superior, and co-Founder with Sr. Catherine Clarke and Brother Francis Maluf. It was unusual for these modern times, but not in Church history - and the finger of Our Lady was there. The children involved because of the circuмstances, were the happiest on the face of the earth. Naturally, it was important that this particular order would be infiltrated, and stress was placed on "getting to" the children, and breaking them up. Years later, after several attempts, Jews were able to further "get to" some who had left and get them to write, or back, disparaging books. Neither are they traditional Catholics. Again, Fr. Feeney was the worst nightmare of the enemies of the Church. A famous, able priest, who was rising in defense of No Salvation, just as they were about to throw the Ecuмenism bomb against the Church. He had to go. And his "group" with him.
Fr. Robinson had Fr. Wathen as priest. For him to enter SSPX and "rise," if such was his interest, (indeed, to perhaps even enter), he would have to put him down - but also, to rise in SSPX it is worth a few points to "make your bones" as an anti-Fr. Feeney mouthpiece. But he more Fr. Robinson does open his mouth on these things, the worse he gets. And because he once knew better, he will have to answer for it. Sometimes, thinking yourself smarter than everybody, because it is what you have heard all your life, turns into you just being the bigger fool on that account.
-
Robinson, like so many in the Neo-SSPX, wants to have their Pope and eat him too.
-
Here is a follow up video from Fr. Robinson. He makes many statements without providing one souce of the magesterium to backup his claims.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5kIdQSogXew
He says the Canon approves of catechumens rite of Christian Buriel but fails to mention that was not allowed until the cc 1917.
-
If I come to a conclusion on something due to evidence, finding some authority I respect agreed with me (that I didn't know about previously) might be additional evidence and confirm my conclusion.
But I just don't see an impact if I find that someone I don't respect opposes my conclusion. So what?
There is something called credibility. If you know that someone is a Modernist, then anything they say becomes suspect. Even if they have some facts correct, the context in which they present them is flawed. That’s similar to the 95% of Vatican II is Catholic nonsense. Sure, there are some things in V2 that are a restatement of Catholic doctrine ... yet the entire thing is polluted by the context of Vatican II, which presents these truths in a relativistic and Modernist context. So, for instance, even when they say that there are Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, that is presented within the context of “this is our truth but you Buddhists have your truth too”.
So if Fr. Robinson says anything, there’s a high likelihood that there’s something wrong with it, even if some isolated facts might be correct. This applies to the neo-SSPX also.
Nevertheless, I did listen to his presentation ... and it confirmed my initial suspicion.
-
I haven’t watched the latest video but the title is logically absurd. Did Fr. Robinson approve the title? If so, he needs a refresher course in logic. “Catholics are not Catholic.”
And of course Siscoe and Salza say otherwise. Joe Bıdɛn is a Catholic in good standing: it’s only sedevacantists who are outside the Church. Heck there’s a higher likelihood of some Hindu in Tibet being saved than some sedevacantist.
This title reflects how muddled the SSPX mindset has become. In order to hold the corollary, that Modernists (like Jorge Bergoglio) are in fact Catholic, despite also being non-Catholic, they have to overturn logic itself.
-
Here is a follow up video from Fr. Robinson. He makes many statements without providing one souce of the magesterium to backup his claims.
Yes, this latest video is sloppy and lazy. He creates a straw man caricature of a Modernist where it only applies to a small subset of Modernists, the more extreme ones. There are much more subtle forms of Modernism, including that which HE HIMSELF exhibits in spades, that Catholics must be on guard against. Bishop Williamson famously holds that we’ve ALL been infected to varying degrees. It’s not something “out there” and external to us, but we must fight even the subtle forms of it in ourselves. By the time it gets to the extreme portrayed by Fr. Robinson, it’s far too late.
-
Yes, this latest video is sloppy and lazy. He creates a straw man caricature of a Modernist where it only applies to a small subset of Modernists, the more extreme ones. There are much more subtle forms of Modernism, including that which HE HIMSELF exhibits in spades, that Catholics must be on guard against. Bishop Williamson famously holds that we’ve ALL been infected to varying degrees. It’s not something “out there” and external to us, but we must fight even the subtle forms of it in ourselves. By the time it gets to the extreme portrayed by Fr. Robinson, it’s far too late.
So, according to your reasoning, you too are a Modernist, just not an extreme Modernist. As an admitted Modernist yourself who professes to be a Catholic, on what basis do you believe Joe Biden is not a Catholic?
-
Modernism is a condemned heresy. Holding even one modernist proposition ipso facto leads to excommunication. There is a decree of St Pius X saying so.
Heresy is not a. more or less severe infection, it is a severe crime.
-
Modernism is a condemned heresy. Holding even one modernist proposition ipso facto leads to excommunication. There is a decree of St Pius X saying so.
Heresy is not a. more or less severe infection, it is a severe crime.
Can you name a Modernist propositions from Pascendi?
-
Can you name a Modernist propositions from Pascendi?
Why? How about Lamentabili?
-
P.S.: explicit ipso facto condemnation in Praestantia Scripturae, 1907.
-
Quote from Praestantia scripturae:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10prasc.htm
Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “Lamentabili sane exitu” (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these docuмents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said docuмents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these docuмents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.
-
Modernism is a condemned heresy. Holding even one modernist proposition ipso facto leads to excommunication. There is a decree of St Pius X saying so.
Heresy is not a. more or less severe infection, it is a severe crime.
We need to remember the distinction here, though. If you hold to a condemned position with pertinacity, even after being properly corrected and given the knowledge that it is heresy, only then you would be subject to an ipso facto excommunication.
What Lad was addressing, paraphrasing +Williamson, is that many Catholics today hold to material heresies, such as Modernist ideas, out of ignorance. It is not that one is holding these ideas pertinaciously, but that many don't realize that they are in fact condemned propositions or errors. One could argue this is the case with someone like Fr. Robinson because he may be holding these Modernistic errors without realizing they are such in the first place, especially since his superiors in the neo-SSPX are affirming his positions.
-
We need to remember the distinction here, though. If you hold to a condemned position with pertinacity, even after being properly corrected and given the knowledge that it is heresy, only then you would be subject to an ipso facto excommunication.
What Lad was addressing, paraphrasing +Williamson, is that many Catholics today hold to material heresies, such as Modernist ideas, out of ignorance. It is not that one is holding these ideas pertinaciously, but that many don't realize that they are in fact condemned propositions or errors. One could argue this is the case with someone like Fr. Robinson because he may be holding these Modernistic errors without realizing they are such in the first place, especially since his superiors in the neo-SSPX are affirming his positions.
Williamson didn't say that all trads are infected with modernism. He was talking about an infection with some liberal ideas.
St. Pius X condems all those who contradict his antimodernist writings.
-
Williamson didn't say that all trads are infected with modernism.
Wrong. I was at the seminary where he stated very clearly that we've all been infected, himself included.
Modernism manifested itself in a set of propositions that were condemned, but the subjectivist principles behind it can also manifest themselves much more subtly.
-
What Lad was addressing, paraphrasing +Williamson, is that many Catholics today hold to material heresies, such as Modernist ideas, out of ignorance. It is not that one is holding these ideas pertinaciously, but that many don't realize that they are in fact condemned propositions or errors. One could argue this is the case with someone like Fr. Robinson because he may be holding these Modernistic errors without realizing they are such in the first place, especially since his superiors in the neo-SSPX are affirming his positions.
Bishop Williamson laid out the subjectivist philosophy that underlies "Modernism", the root thinking behind it.
While St. Pius X condemned some very specific, more egregious manifestations of this infection, it runs a lot deeper.
-
One of those such philosophies that precedes the Modernist errors outlined by St. Pius X is the Americanist heresy, one which has infected literally all American Catholics since the founding of our artificial nation.
I highly recommend Solange Hertz's books The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism and Utopia Nowhere as summaries of this tendency and how it is contrary to Catholic thinking, unique to many of us as Americans.
-
Wrong. I was at the seminary where he stated very clearly that we've all been infected, himself included.
Modernism manifested itself in a set of propositions that were condemned, but the subjectivist principles behind it can also manifest themselves much more subtly.
I don't believe what you say about Williamson.
He publicly talked about liberal ideas, not modernism. St. Pius X explained what modernism is. It's a well described set of ideas.
-
I don't believe what you say about Williamson.
He publicly talked about liberal ideas, not modernism. St. Pius X explained what modernism is. It's a well described set of ideas.
I was there at the seminary for a long time, listening to his weekly conferences. I know what he said.
No, St. Pius X simply described certain manifestations of Modernism that were prevalent in his day. Modernism is subjectivist philosophy applied to the Catholic faith. That is precisely why St. Pius X called it the synthesis of ALL heresies. It's not a set of heretical propositions, but rather a hereticization (to coin a term) of all Catholic doctrine.
-
It's right there at the very beginning of St. Pius X's description of Modernism in Pascendi
Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits.
Bishop Williamson rightly traces this to the philosophy of Descartes and then to the PHENOMENology of Kant finding their way into the Church and applying that mentality to Catholic doctrine. And it can be manifested in a limitless number of ways. One of the most common activities of these early Modernists was opposing natural science against faith, the evolutionists like Chardin. Father Robinson himself manifests that exact tendency in his approach to science, where we have to re-interpret and re-understand certain prior Catholic doctrine, such as always had been held by the Church Fathers, for instance regarding the Flood. Because his "science" tells him that there could not have been a universal flood, instead of questioning the science on the authority of the Church Fathers, he rejects the Patristic consensus based on the science. So he re-interprets Scripture to fit it with science. That is in fact a clear manifestation of Modernism.
-
Wrong. I was at the seminary where he stated very clearly that we've all been infected, himself included.
I can corroborate this. I heard Msgr. Williamson say this on several occassions--in weekly spiritual conferences, sermons at Mass, and in casual conversations.
-
Williamson didn't say that all trads are infected with modernism.
Wrong. I was at the seminary where he stated very clearly that we've all been infected, himself included.
Any true Catholic, stating that he himself is infected with heresy, would get himself desinfected before lecturing others about errors of all trads.
How can you say such nonsense about Williamson, without any proof?
-
I can corroborate this. I heard Msgr. Williamson say this on several occassions--in weekly spiritual conferences, sermons at Mass, and in casual conversations.
What exactly did he say on several occasions? That he himself is "infected with modernism", like Ladislaus said?
-
Any true Catholic, stating that he himself is infected with heresy, would get himself desinfected before lecturing others about errors of all trads.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "infected"? +W is saying we're all infected with Modernism, just like, after Adam's fall, the entire human race was infected with Original Sin and all it's spiritual consequences.
-
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "infected"? +W is saying we're all infected with Modernism, just like, after Adam's fall, the entire human race was infected with Original Sin and all it's spiritual consequences.
Are you a third witness of oral tradition? What exactly did Williamson say? That he himself is "infected with modernism", like Ladislaus said?
-
Ladislaus, ElwinRansom1970, Pax Vobis,
here's Williamson about the poison of liberalism, an unbelievable disease, capable of rotting out the best hearts and minds. He gives a brief definition, and he calls it a "poison" that threatens "every one of us":
ELEISON COMMENTS CLXXXV (Jan. 29, 2011) : *TRADITIONAL INFECTION*
Liberalism is an unbelievable disease, capable of rotting out the best
hearts and minds. If we define it, most briefly, as the liberation of man
from God, it is as old as the hills, but never has it been so deep or
widespread or seemingly normal, as it is today. Now religious liberty is at
the heart of liberalism -- what use is it to be free from everything else
and everybody else if I am not free from God ? So if Benedict XVI lamented
three weeks ago that "religious freedom is threatened all over the world",
he is certainly infected. Nor let even followers of Catholic Tradition be
confident that they have immunity from the disease. Here is an e-mail I
received a few days ago from a layman in Continental Europe:--
"For the longest time, about 20 years, I was moulded by liberalism. It is
through the grace of God that I underwent a conversion with the Society of
St Pius X. To my shock I have found liberal behaviour even in the ranks of
Tradition. People are still saying that one should not exaggerate how bad
things are at present. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is hardly mentioned as being an enemy of
the Church, because to do so might damage one's personal interests, so
people go on reacting as though, overall, the world is still in good shape.
"Some Traditionalists even recommend psycho-drugs to deal with the stress
that goes with being a Traditional Catholic, and if you are looking for
happiness, they say, you should go to a medical doctor to make life easier.
"The consequence of such behaviour is an indifferentism which is the
seed-bed of liberalism. All of a sudden it is no longer so bad to attend the
Novus Ordo Mass, to make common cause with modernists, to change one's
principles from one day to the next, to give up showing one's faith in
public, to study at a State university, to trust the State, and to act on
the assumption that everybody does after all mean well.
"Our Lord has harsh words for this sort of indifferentism : the lukewarm he
will "begin to spit out of his mouth" (Rev. III, 16). It may sound
paradoxical, but the greatest enemies of the Church are liberal Catholics.
There is even a liberal Traditionalism !!!" (end of layman's quote).
What then is the antidote for this poison that threatens every one of us ?
Sanctifying grace, no doubt (Rom.VII, 25), which can clear the mind of
confusion, and strengthen the will to do what the mind sees to be right. And
how do I make sure of sanctifying grace ? That is a little like asking, how
can I guarantee my final perseverance ? The Church teaches that one cannot
guarantee it, because it is a gift - or the gift -- of God. But what I can
always do is pray the Holy Rosary, an average of five Mysteries a day -
better, if reasonably possible, fifteen. Whosoever does that is doing what
the Mother of God asks all of us to do, and she has a virtually unlimited
maternal power over her Son, Our Lord and God, Jesus
Christ.
Kyrie eleison.
-
Modernism = liberalism.
-
Modernism = liberalism.
No, Liberalism is an offspring of Humanism and Protestantism, and Englishman John Locke (17th century) is generally acknowledged as the "Father of Liberalism".
Modernism is a bunch of heretical concepts coming up from a bottomless pit within the Church at the end of the 19th century. Frenchman Alfred Loisy is generally credited as the "Father of Modernism".
I haven't ever heard Williamson confusing these well known terms, well known to informed Catholics.
-
Modernism is a bunch of heretical concepts ...
No, it's not. It cannot be reduced to specific heretical concepts. It's an entire system ... applying rationalism and subjectivism (Descartes and Kantian phenomenology) to doctrine. So the specific propositions that can proceed from it are myriad. We have all be infected to some extent with rationalism and subjectivism, aka Modernism.
St. Pius X defined it right there toward the beginning of Pascendi which I cited.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
-
No, it's not. It cannot be reduced to specific heretical concepts. It's an entire system ... applying rationalism and subjectivism (Descartes and Kantian phenomenology) to doctrine. So the specific propositions that can proceed from it are myriad. We have all be infected to some extent with rationalism and subjectivism, aka Modernism.
St. Pius X defined it right there toward the beginning of Pascendi which I cited.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
You should learn to read. Your quote from Pascendi just says that "Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism". That's no reason to confound Modernism with Liberalism.
And there is no reason to now additionally come up with Rationalism and Subjectivism. Are you just trying to jumble all terminology?
Here my question: Is it the confusion in your head or has it been Williamson personally saying that he, Williamson, is "infected with Modernism" or equivalent?
If you insist, I will ask Sean Johnson to write to Williamson for confirmation.
-
No, Liberalism is an offspring of Humanism and Protestantism, and Englishman John Locke (17th century) is generally acknowledged as the "Father of Liberalism".
Modernism is a bunch of heretical concepts coming up from a bottomless pit within the Church at the end of the 19th century. Frenchman Alfred Loisy is generally credited as the "Father of Modernism".
I haven't ever heard Williamson confusing these well known terms, well known to informed Catholics.
And St. Pope Pius X called modernism, “... the synthesis of all heresies”.
-
And St. Pope Pius X called modernism, “... the synthesis of all heresies”.
So what? Given the statement "Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies", do we have to conclude that Modernism = Liberalism = Rationalism = Subjectivism?
No! BS! Liberalism is not "the synthesis of all heresies", Rationalism is not "the synthesis of all heresies", and Subjectivism is not "the synthesis of all heresies".
-
Modernism is Liberalism within the Church.
-
Modernism is Liberalism within the Church.
Did you make up this formula from scratch on the fly out of thin air, just to deviate from the question what Williamson said, or do you refer to some authority?
-
We have two people here who listened to Bishop Williamson speak on a regular basis over a long course of time who have told you that he said this vs. you blustering over and over again in your ignorance misdefining Modernism as a set of propositions rather than a system.
Just stop wasting our time with your nonsense.
-
We have two people here who listened to Bishop Williamson speak on a regular basis over a long course of time who have told you that he said this vs. you blustering over and over again in your ignorance misdefining Modernism as a set of propositions rather than a system.
Just stop wasting our time with your nonsense.
What about my question? Has it been Williamson personally saying that he, Williamson, is "infected with Modernism" or equivalent?
Do you answer the question with a "yes" or a "no"?
If you don't, I'll take all your deviating answers as a "no" and as an implicit retraction of replies #26 and #35.
If you say "yes", I'll ask Sean Johnson, as I said above.
If you say "no", then you retract your reply #26 and reply #35 and I'll thank you.
-
This is Marion's MO. My only interactions of him have been word games surrounding colloquial vs his interpretation vs strict interpretation of definitions. Look at the last few pages of his post history and it's just derailing conversations with these games. If this uncharitable behavior wasn't persistent thread to thread I wouldn't call it out but this is just absurd. If he's actually autistic and can't help himself he should talk to his priest.
What part of his posts have productive content actually moving the discussion forward?
-
The promised second part is out "Crisis Series #32 w/ Fr. Robinson: Can Non-Catholics Go to Heaven? The Church vs. Fr. Feeney" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8jfkVUD9jE
To be honest, quite disappointing. I also found in this topic quite interesting videos of Fr. Albert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UV_riNsJIQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNk3lGRvxtI . Very different and super precise.
Looks like there is a 3rd state, limbo and in order to go to heaven, i.e. receive a gift of beatific vision, the baptism is necessary.