Circular email from December 17, 2002.

______________________________________________________

Dear Friends,

The article attached below is truly incredible, in the fullest sense of that word.

Faced with the obvious fact that JPII's "canonisations" are rubbish, Bishop Williamson has a choice to make. Either he accepts the theological certainty that canonisations are infallible acts, in accordance with the teaching of the sound theologians of before V2, and thus rejects the impious claim of JPII to the See of St. Peter, or he accepts JPII's ridiculous claim and undermines the truth that canonisations are infallible.

Tragically, he chooses the latter course, thus participating in the very same process of destruction carried on by JPII and the whole V2 sect. This conclusion is inescapable.

Bishop Williamson writes, "Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were virtually infallible, for two main reasons."

That is quite false. The theologians were divided, prior to Vatican II, into two camps. The liberals, who were a tiny minority and who denied or cast doubt on the infallibility of canonisations, and the orthodox theologians who affirmed Holy Church's infallibility in the matter. It is completely incorrect to state that "Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations of Saints were virtually infallible." This is like characterising the abortion debate as "a general agreement by mankind that life virtually begins at conception," on the basis that some deny it, and some affirm it. The statement is ridiculous and false, and very, very, misleading.

Canon G.D. Smith, in his tome, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church" (1952), stated baldly that "the Church exercises her infallibility in the solemn canonisation of saints. For it is unthinkable that the lives of those whom the Church upholds as models of heroic sanctity should be other than she declares them to be." (p. 713, Emphasis added.) I can't see any way to reconcile that with Bishop Williamson's claim of agreement that canonisations are virtually infallible.

Van Noort, another pre-V2 theologian, tells us that Canon Smith's doctrine is the common opinion. Once again, there isn't any way that Bishop Williamson's claim can be made to reflect that assertion. He is wrong.

But it gets worse. Bishop Williamson proceeds to explain that there were two reasons that the pre-V2 theologians held their position. "Firstly, the proposing of model Catholics to be venerated and imitated as Saints is so central to Catholics' practice of their faith, that Mother Church could hardly be mistaken in the matter." That word "hardly" is false, mischievous, and calculated to undermine the truth.

Bishop Williamson then provides the alleged second reason supporting the traditional doctrine. "This being so, secondly, the pre-Vatican II Popes took such care in examining candidates for canonization, and successful candidates they canonized with such solemnity, that their act of canonizing was as close as could be to a pronouncement of the Popes' solemn and infallible magisterium." The same technique is here employed, this time in the words, "as close as could be." Let's take a look at Van Noort's presentation of these two reasons, and see whether or not there can be any excuse for Bishop Williamson's assertions.

Van Noort, in his theology manual, "Christ's Church" (English edition 1957, p. 118) begins, "Proof:

"1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: 'By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.'

"2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protege of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult."

Neither of these reasons is presented as leading to a conclusion such as could honestly be described by relative terms such as "hardly" or "as close as could be."

Just to ensure that there is no doubt at all that the "common opinion" of theologians prior to V2 was as Van Noort says, let's add another source, Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 299) "To the secondary object of infallibility belong: a) Theological conclusions derived from a formally revealed truth by aid of a natural truth of reason. b) Historical facts on the determination of which the certainty of a truth of Revelation depends (facta dogmatica). c) Natural truths of reason which are intimately connected with truths of Revelation. For further details see Introduction, Par. 6. d) The canonisation of saints, that is, the final judgment that a member of the Church has been assumed into eternal bliss and may be the object of general veneration. The veneration shown to the saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, 'to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints' (Quodl. 9, 16). If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church."

Once again, absolute statements, not relative ones.

Equally false is Bishop Williamson's doctrine regarding tradition and the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. He explains it as follows, "ln fact unchangingness is so essential to this doctrine, that conformity with Tradition is the criterion of the Church's infallible ordinary magisterium. ln other words if one wants to know what cannot be false in the day-to-day teaching of the Church's teachers, the way to tell is to measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching is infallible, and if it does not, it is not infallible."

The magisterium is the teaching office of the Church. Infallible means incapable of failing. Not, did not fail, but incapable of doing so. Consequently, Bishop Williamson's explanation makes no sense. Let's remove the technical terms from his paragraph and see how it reads. I'll put the replacement words in italics.

"ln fact unchangingness is so essential to this doctrine, that conformity with Tradition is the criterion of the Church's infallible ordinary teaching office. ln other words if one wants to know what cannot be false in the day-to-day teaching of the Church's teachers, the way to tell is to measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching cannot fail, and if it does not, it is able to fail."

It is immediately obvious that this is nonsensical. An office can be fallible or not fallible. A teaching is either true or false. But a teaching cannot be said to be incapable of failing or capable of failing. A teaching does not act. A teacher does. And it is the Church as teacher which exercises the teaching office which we call the magisterium.

Moreover, Bishop Williamson's doctrine makes the infallibility of the Church depend upon her teaching, not vice versa as is the correct doctrine. In other words, in Bishop Williamson's doctrine we can know when a teacher is infallible by whether he agrees with what the Church has taught before. But this is to remove any value at all from the doctrine of infallibility, because if we know what the Church has taught before, we do not need to know whether our teacher can fail - we already know what is true and what is false. Indeed, in this Alice-in-Wonderland theology we do not need a teacher at all. We have already been taught. That is, as far as I can tell, axiomatic.

The truth is quite different from this mish-mash of mistaken terms and senseless sentences. The truth is simply that the ordinary, universal, magisterium is infallible, which means that the Church cannot teach universally, in time or space, what is not true. Thus the bishops cannot all teach false doctrine at the same time, nor could a series of popes teach false doctrine over a lengthy period. Nor could the Church establish laws which tend to harm souls. Thus Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, a consultor to the Roman Congregations under Pope Pius XII, in his De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (Gregorian University, Rome, 1951), states that “…, neither general councils nor the pope can establish laws that include sin…and nothing could be included in the Code of Canon Law that is in any way opposed to the rules of faith or to evangelical holiness."

And nor, let it be said without any qualification, could the Church propose "as models of heroic sanctity," to be honoured and imitated by the Universal Church, Modernists such as Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer.

Yours in Christ our King,
John Lane.

________________________________________
Bishop Williamson's letter - December 2002


NEWCHURCH "CANONIZATIONS"

December 6, 2002

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The October 6 "canonization" of Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer, founder of the "Opus Dei", like the September "beatification" of Pope John XXIII, launcher of Vatican II, re-opens an old and hurtful wound - how can the Catholic Church do such things? And if it is not the Catholic Church that is doing them, what is it?

For indeed it is clear beyond any doubt that the CatbolicChurch prior to Vatican II when she was still essentially faithful to Catholic Tradition, would never have beatified the Pope who initiated the Council which devastated that Tradition, nor canonized the founder of "Opus Dei", an organization preparing the way for that Council.

There is an abundance of quotes, proudly published by "Opus Dei" itself, to prove that Msgr. Escriva shared and promoted key ideas of Vatican II. Here are two: Msgr. Escriva himself said, "Ours is the first organization which, with the authorization of the Holy See, admits non-Catholics, Christian or non-Christian. I have always defended liberty of conscience" ("Conversaciones con Mons. Escriva", ed. Rialp, p.296). And his successor at the head of "Opus Dei" said about Msgr. Escriva's book "Camino", "It prepared millions of people to get in tu ne with, and to accept in depth, some of the most revolutionary teachings which 30 years later would be solemnly promulgated by the Church at Vatican II'' ("Estudios sobre 'Camino"', Msgr. Alvaro dei Portillo, ed. Rialp, p.58).

Therefore, for Pope John XXIII to have been truly a Blessed, and for Msgr. Escriva to have been truly a Saint, the Second Vatican Council would have to have been a true Council, or a Council true to Catholic Tradition. Which is ridiculous, as at least regular readers of this Letter know. Yet are not Catholic canonizations meant to be infallible?

Indeed before Vatican II, Catholic theologians agreed that canonizations (not beatifications) of Saints were virtually infallible, for two main reasons. Firstly, the proposing of model Catholics to be venerated and imitated as Saints is so central to Catholics' practice of their faith, that Mother Church could hardly be mistaken in the matter. This being so, secondly, the pre-Vatican II Popes took such care in examining candidates for canonization, and successful candidates they canonized with such solemnity, that their act of canonizing was as close as could be to a pronouncement of the Popes' solemn and infallible magisterium.

But since Vatican II, firstly the models chosen for imitation are liable, like John XXIII and Msgr. Escriva, to be chosen for their alignment on Vatican II, i.e. on the destruction of Catholic Tradition, and secondly, the formerly strict process of examination of candidates has been so loosened under the Vatican II popes and there has followed such a flood of canonizations under John Paul II, thaf the whole process of canonizing has lost, together with its solemnity, any likelihood of infallibility. Indeed, how can John Paul II intend to do anything infallible, or therefore do it, when he often acts and talks, for instance about "living tradition", as though Truth can change?

So this or that Saint "canonized" by John Paul II may in fact be in Heaven, even Msgr. Escriva, God knows, but it is certainly not his "canonization" by this Pope which can make us sure of the fact. Nor need we then feel obliged to venerate any of the post-Vatican II "Saints".

Which leaves us with the problem we began with: the Catholic Church has the divine promise of indefecti- bility, i.e. it cannat fail ("Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" - Mt. XXVII, 20). Then how can canonizations, which are meant through infallibility to partake in that indefectibility, fail, by partaking instead in Vatican II? Are we not obliged to admit either that Vatican II was not so bad after all (as the priests of Campos are now doing), or else that the sedevacantists are right after all in saying that John Paul II is not really pope? Sedevacantism would explain any amount of fallibility on his part!

The Society of St. Pius X, following Archbishop Lefebvre (1905-1991), adopts neither the Conciliar nor the sedevacanti5t solution. It believes that the Second Vatican Council was amongst the greatest disasters in the history of the Catholic Church, yet it considers that the popes who promoted that Council and its ideas (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II) were or are true popes. How can that be? How can true popes so act as to destroy the true Church?
Firstly, God creates all of us human beings free, with free will, because He does not want robots in His Heaven. That applies also to the churchmen, to whom He chooses to entrust His Catholic Church. These have there- fore an astonishing degree of freedom to build up or to destroy the Church. For instance, when Our Lord asks if he will find the Faith when he cornes back on earth (Lk XVIII, 8), we know for certain that by men's (not only church- men's) fault, the Catholic Church will be very small at the Second Coming.

However Our Lord also promised that the gales of Hell would never prevail against his Church (Mt. XVI, 18), and so we also know for certain that God will never allow the wickedness of men to go so far as to destroy His Church completely. ln this certainty that the Church will never completely fail lies her indefectibility, and sinGe the first function of the Church is to teach Our Lord's doctrine of salvation, then upon indefectibility in existing follows infallibility in teaching. For souls of good will, the Catholic Church and her Truth will always be there.

So the Catholic Church to the end of lime will never cease, on however small a scale, to make heard amongst men the doctrine of salvation, the Deposit of the Faith. From eternity this doctrine proceeds tram God the Father to God the Son, it was faithfully entrusted by the Incarnate God to His Apostles, and it has been handed down as unchanging Tradition through the successors of the Apostles ever since. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away", says Our Lord (Lk. XXI, 33). ln tact unchangingness is so essential to this doctrine, that conformity with Tradition is the criterion of the Church's infallible ordinary magisterium. ln other words if one wants to know what cannat be taise in the day-to-day teaching of the Church's teachers, the way to tell is to measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching is infallible, and if it does not, it is not infallible. Moreover, the Church's infallible extraordinary magisterium is the servant of this ordinary magisterium, insofar as it provides a divinely protected guarantee that such and such a doctrine belongs within the Church's true doctrine, i.e. within ordinary Tradition.

Therefore Tradition, or conformity with what the Church has always taught, is the ultimate yardstick or measure of the Church's infallible teaching, ordinary or extraordinary. Therefore anything outside Tradition is fallible, and anything contradicting Tradition is certainly taise, for instance the new Vatican II teaching on religious liberty and ecuмenism. But John XXIII was beatified, and Msgr. Escriva was "canonized", for their sympathy with these Conciliar novelties. Therefore such "canonizations" are certainly to some extent contrary to Catholic Tradition, and to that extent they are automatically not infallible, without my having to examine any further. "If an angel tram Heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal l, 8).

So if one asks how it cao be God's own churchmen who do so much damage to His Church, the answer is that He gives them great freedom, short of letting them completely destroy His Church, and because out of any evil they do he will bring some greater good. For instance, out of dubious canonizations he cao bring to "Traditional Catholics" a still better grasp of the primacy of Tradition.

And to the question how canonizations, meant to be infallible, cao instead be Conciliar, the answer is that if God allows a pope to believe in Vatican II, He may surely also allow him to take action and to "canonize" in accor- dance with Vatican II, and to loosen the strict old rules oftrue canonization which virtually guaranteed the candidate's conformity with Tradition. If Catholics are misled who blindly follow Church authority when it goes astray, that is their own problem, but Catholics who follow Tradition will, on Si. Paul's command, with prudence, "anathematize" any clear departure tram it.

So we may absolutely refuse Vatican II and all its pomps and all its works and yet not have to become sedevacantists, so long as we understand that Church indefectibility does not mean that parts of the Church will never be destroyed, only that the Church will never be completely destroyed. Similarly Church infallibility does not mean that the Church's teachers will teach untruth by, for instance, dubious "canonizations", only that, amongst other truths, the truth of Christian sanctity will never be totally falsified or silenced.

ln conclusion, these more or less Conciliar "canonizations" are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch "canonization" to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch "canonizations" a credit which is not due to them.

Dear readers, I must warmly thank all of you whose spiritual and mate rial support has carried the seminary through a remarkably happy calendar year. All September's entrants are still with us, in tact two more have corne! Very many thanks.
Let the men sign up for the five-day retreat here tram December 26 to 31. And let me wish all of you a happy Christmas free of sentimentalism, but forgive me if I again invite you to send me no cards, because I am abroad until early January. Get sentimental about my poor desk!

With all good wishes and blessings, in Christ,
+ Richard Williamson

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Centroamerica

I just voted on this poll. I have been using the Dialogue for mental prayer on weekdays. I haven't read the entire thing but most of it. I voted that I believe it is true and to some point binding because if you claim it isn't true you accuse a canonized saint of a grave sin. (That was the third, poorly worded option). I still believe it is private revelation, but being the work of a canonized saint calling upon papal infallibility gives it a binding nature (unless you would make some silly claim like that it was fraudulently attributed to her.)

I guess the options could be a little better.

All the libel here being spewed against me by both Ladislaus and Disputaciones is easily refuted by reading my third post on this thread (which was posted before anyone else even commented on page 1!!!!).

Then why did you ridicule what Ladislaus said about it being a mortal sin to reject canonizations?

when someone asks what ERROR do the revelations contain, the OP, without any explanation, posts something teaching BOD/BOB and specifically highlights this.

Also, this was completely false and never happened on this thread...

Quote from: Disputaciones

when someone asks what ERROR do the revelations contain, the OP, without any explanation, posts something teaching BOD/BOB and specifically highlights this.

I made no comment regarding what ERROR was asked about. I believe that the Dialogue of St. Catherine contains no errors and no post was ever posted in reference to that.

The post citing the Dialogue was posted by me much before the other poster asked about what supposed errors it contained. This entire claim is completely false that Disputaciones made and can easily be seen by reviewing the thread.

I ridiculed it because it is his position that doesn't make sense!!! Every word you spoke to me on your first post on this thread could easily have been spoken to him. In fact, he admits this by stating here that you probably confused his thread with mine. Most regular posters on here know that Ladislaus is an obstinant Feenyite. He clearly says that it would be grave to deny that St. Catherine is not a canonized saint and impossible to reject the Dialogue as a fable or lie, but then I quoted a line to him of something he absolutely rejects and dedicates his time to pushing on Cath Info, thus showing a clear contradiction in him! This, apparently, hit him so hard he tried to deflect the attention onto me by falsely accusing me of rejecting pre-V 2 canonizations (which was proven to be false in an earlier post on this thread).

It is a theological error to claim that Private Revelations (even by saints) MUST be believed as if they were infallible matters of Faith and Morals. Not only does the Church teach that all private revelation need not be believed; but actually the Church goes further more and cautions against it. Of course, private revelations of saints have more weight than those of mere laymen, but still Catholics are not required to believe in them. No private revelation can ever contradict dogma.

 No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.

Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.

Quote from: Cantaheretic

 No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.

Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!

So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?


In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:

a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.

b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.

c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.

Take your pick, chooser.