There's a lot of bad theology in the SSPX: the Catholic Church vs. the official Church, eternal Rome vs. modernist Rome, "faith is greater than obedience" (does not apply here), validity of Confessions due to "common error", etc. And once seminarians start studying traditional dogmatic theology, the contrast between what's in those books and some of the SSPX theological lines becomes apparent.
In your HUMBLE opinion, emphasis on the HUMBLE (as in: lowly, next to the dirt) In your opinion there is a theological problem. But you are no theologian, so what do you know about theology?
Of course it's my opinion. Do I need to put the following disclaimer into my sig line: "This post represents the humble opinion of an unqualified layman. Ladislaus in no way represents the Church's magisterium"? That should go without saying. I think, though, that when you respond with
ad hominem attacks, does it perhaps mean you can't argue the points.
You may notice in my post that I attributed these positions to the SSPX rather than to Bishop Williamson specifically, because these are things floating around in the SSPX.
eternal Rome vs. modernist Rome, official Church vs. Catholic Church -- those are theological innovations that can be found nowhere in any theological manual and are nothing more than DESCRIPTIONS (again, based in no theology) in order to describe the SSPX conflct / contradiction.
"faith is greater than obedience" -- that expression does not apply to theological questions around the Church's disciplinary infallibility. There simply cannot be a conflict between obeying the Church's authoritative magisterium, accepting universally-imposed discipline (and other legislation) and "faith". We form our faith FROM the magisterium.
When asked how their Confessions can be valid, SSPX often cites "common error". "Common Error" however refers to material error on the part of the one going to confession with regard to whether the confessor has jurisdiction. So, for instance, if a priest from out of town just sits in a confessional in a Catholic Church, people start lining up and going to confession, that's common error. That principles simply does not refer to theological error / modernism in the Church.
Matthew, I've READ the theology manuals, most of them in Latin, especially the
De Ecclesia sections. They all speak of the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, that the Catholic Church CANNOT promulgate a rite of Mass to the entire Church that's harmful, cannot be attended in good conscience, and can be considered a "bastard rite". That would violate the Church's "holiness" and indefectibility.
Now, IF you say that the New Mass is harmful (as characterized above), then you MUST say that it has not issued from the Church's authority. As I said, you can try to argue that the Mass was not authoritatively imposed. But unfortunately the SSPX rarely makes these distinctions. They have set up a novel "two Churches co-existing" ecclesiology to explain this contradiction. And they have set up a false
sensus Catholius in which it's OK to believe that the entire teaching Church can go off the deep end, that the pope can be ignored and just payed lip service to, and given some kind of honorable mention in the liturgy. That's contary to the Church's perennial magsterium.
An SSPX priest in Cleveland was quoted by the local newspaper as having said: "The Catholic Church has become modernist." I think my hair nearly fell out when I read that.
I bet Bishop Williamson knows a lot more about Theology than you do. He actually studied it in the seminary, plus he has the graces of state to TEACH, being a bishop. A priest's role is to help a bishop in his duties. A layman's role is to listen and BE TAUGHT (which requires docility).
Sure Bishop Williamson knows a lot more theology than I do. No question about it. Problem is that he never applied any of his theological wisdom in the discusions we had around sedevacante. He just waxed poetic about the "mystery of inquity" etc. etc. and simply refused to address head-on any of these theological questions I raised (as detailed above). He spoke about the bad fruits of sedevacantism. He spoke about the saintly glory of Archbishop Lefebvre; he practically worshipped Archbishop Lefebvre.
And others have made a good point. If Vatican Council II represents almost all the world's bishops in union with a legitimate Pope, all of whom actually had JURISDICTION to teach, unlike Bishop Williamson, well, that would seem to trump Bishop Williamson's "teaching authority".
You're getting me wrong. I LIKE Bishop Williamson--a lot. He just didn't address the questions that sedevacantists have.
And it's this inability and/or unwillingness to articulate and to address this crisis regarding the Church THEOLOGICALLY that has caused people to go Society of St. Peter and sedevacantist, one direction or the other. This denial of the Church's disciplinary infallibility causes sedevacantists to go the other way and declare that there can not even be the slightest iota of error in the least papal allocution or offhand comment in an encyclical. It's this refusal to actually speak the language of "theology" regarding this crisis, to address these contradictions, that causes the sedevacantists to get angry and over-react.
DOUBT, however, exonerates from schism and yet allows deference to the Church's authority, i.e. admitting that private judgment does not suffice to start crossing out popes. And, honestly, most SSPX Catholics have an IMPLICIT doubt regarding this hierarchy. They HAVE to.
Honestly, though, Matthew, this worshipful attitude towards Bishop Williamson is troubling. I like him very much and pray for him to this day. But, come on now. Isn't this emphasis on OBEDIENCE the same thing which the modernists employ to propagate their errors? And many have noted the contradiction in the SSPX leaders chastising dissident priests for "disobedience" when they themselves are in CHRONIC DISSOBEDIENCE to the man whom they aver unhesitatingly to be the Vicar of Christ. Given that this tactic is the same as that employed by the modernists, one might suspect that the SSPX has been infiltrated by the very same enemies of the Church.
Topic: Admonishment of CM (Read 35018 times)