Author Topic: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCL - 250: ENLIGHTENMENT DA (Read 1963 times)

s2srea · « **on:** April 28, 2012, 12:47:53 PM »

28 April 2012
“ENLIGHTENMENT” DARKNESS
Whether or not the Society of St Pius X finally decides to by-pass the doctrinal disagreement and to enter into a purely practical agreement with the authorities of the Conciliar Church in Rome, souls concerned for their eternal welfare must understand as fully as possible what is at stake. In this connection a friend of mine just sent me an admirable synthesis of the heart of the matter:
“From 2009 to 2011 so-called “Doctrinal Discussions” took place between Vatican experts and four theologians of the SSPX. These discussions made clear just how firmly the Roman authorities are attached to the teachings of Vatican II. That Council attempted to reconcile Catholic doctrine with the concept of man as developed by the “Enlightenment” of the 18th century.
“Thus the Council declares that by reason of the dignity of his nature, the human person has the right to practise the religion of his choice. Accordingly society must protect religious liberty and organize the peaceful co-existence of the various religions. These are invited to take part in ecuмenical dialogue, since they all possess their own part of truth.
“In effect, such principles deny that Christ is truly God, and they deny that his Revelation, the deposit of which is guarded by the Church, must be accepted by all men and all societies. Thus the doctrine of religious liberty, as expressed in the Conciliar docuмent Dignitatis Humanae #2, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, of Pius IX in Quanta Cura, of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and of Pius XI inQuas Primas. The doctrine expressed in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium #8, according to which divine Providence uses non-Catholic sects as means of salvation, contradicts the teachings of Pius IX in the Syllabus, of Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum and of Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.
“These novel doctrines which along with many others contradict the formal and unanimous teachings of Popes before the Council, can only be qualified in the light of Catholic dogma as heretical.
“Therefore since the unity of the Church rests on the integrity of the Faith, it is clear that the SSPX cannot come to any agreement, be it only “practical” with those who hold such doctrines.”
When my friend accuses the 18th century movement of intellectual emancipation known as the “Enlightenment” of being at the root of the churchmen’s 20th century collapse, he is making essentially the same point as Archbishop Lefebvre when he said to priests of his, half a year before he died in 1991: “The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II... the more one realizes that what is at stake is... a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism... It is a wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy... It is truly frightening.”
So how does one get one’s mind back in subjection to God’s reality ? One way might be to get hold of the papal Encyclicals mentioned by my friend above, and study them. They were written for bishops, but Conciliar bishops are not reliable. Today’s laity must take in hand their own formation, and their own Rosary.(Emphasis mine)
Kyrie eleison.

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** April 28, 2012, 12:48:23 PM »

For those who are interested, below are links to the encyclicals given to us by prior popes which Bishop Williamson mentioned, which are contradicted by Dignitatis Humanae:

MIRARI VOS
ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

AUGUST 15, 1832
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm

Quanta Cura
CONDEMNING CURRENT ERRORS

Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

ON THE CHRISTIAN CONSTITUTION OF STATES
IMMORTALE DEI

Encyclical by Pope Leo XIII

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sta.htm

ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
QUAS PRIMAS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS Xl DECEMBER 11, 1925

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11PRIMA.HTM

Here is the Vatican II docuмent, Dignitatis Humanae:

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2012, 01:34:55 PM »

My SSPX priest mentioned from the pulpit a couple weeks ago that there might yet be "another sifting of tradition," depending on what happens between Rome/SSPX.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2012, 01:42:01 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

For those who are interested, below are links to the encyclicals given to us by prior popes which Bishop Williamson mentioned, which are contradicted by Dignitatis Humanae:

MIRARI VOS
ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

AUGUST 15, 1832
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm

Quanta Cura
CONDEMNING CURRENT ERRORS

Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

ON THE CHRISTIAN CONSTITUTION OF STATES
IMMORTALE DEI

Encyclical by Pope Leo XIII

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sta.htm

ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
QUAS PRIMAS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS Xl DECEMBER 11, 1925

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11PRIMA.HTM

Here is the Vatican II docuмent, Dignitatis Humanae:

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Many thanks for the list.

s2srea · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2012, 09:09:26 PM »

Your welcome.

I'd finished reading the Encyclical Mirari Vos, and thought this was of interest:

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #5 on:** April 29, 2012, 07:23:27 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

My SSPX priest mentioned from the pulpit a couple weeks ago that there might yet be "another sifting of tradition," depending on what happens between Rome/SSPX.

Seraphim, please spend some time expanding on this. What else did the priest say? Was it during homily?

Forewarning of a sifting of tradition is pretty scary when you think about it.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #6 on:** April 29, 2012, 07:24:04 PM »

Excellent point, SrSrea!!!

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2012, 07:58:15 AM »

In searching the letters of Bishop Williamson for another thread, this came to mind.

http://williamsonletters.blogspot.com/2009/02/nice-rome-not-enough.html

Quote

Nice Rome Not Enough
February 1, 2003

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

One amongst a thousand marvelous sayings of St. Augustine is the principle, "In things certain, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity". If there were in the Catholic Church today little confusion, there would be much certainty and we could expect much unity, but since there is much confusion and much doubt, surely we must allow for a corresponding degree of liberty. Speaking for myself, I am sure that the Society of St. Pius X has the long-term solution to the Church's present confusion. The confusion comes from the attempt to mix Catholicism with the principles of the modern world. The solution is to denounce those principles and to refuse even the least mixture. Now one cannot expect all Catholics to understand that, or to accept it, in the twinkling of an eye, but it behoves me to explain patiently why I am so sure the SSPX is right. Let me then gently answer a recent editorial by a - to all appearances - honourable priest in a - to many appearances - honourable monthly Catholic magazine in the United-States. I could name both, but in order to stick to the issues, let me leave out names.

"Souls are the only issue", says the editorialist, Fr. J., and because of two recent experiences in which he saw souls being hurt, he made in his editorial a two-edged appeal, to the authorities in Rome on the one side and to the Superior General of the SSPX on the other, to come to an understanding. The first experience was in Rome, where Fr. J. saw a young Fraternity of St. Peter priest being at the last moment forbidden to celebrate in St. Peter's Basilica an early morning Tridentine Mass for a Latin Mass pilgrimage. The second experience was in Ridgefield, Connecticut, where after an SSPX priest in our Retreat House had celebrated the funeral Mass for a devout girt to whom both he and Fr. J. had ministered, Fr. J. found himself being invited by the priest to conduct the burial ritual at the graveside, which he gladly did.

So Fr. J.'s editorial appealed to Rome to grant to traditionally-minded Catholics a canonical structure which would protect them from harassment by diocesan personnel who feel threatened by any manifestation of pre-Conciliar spirituality. And on the other side the editorial appealed to the SSPX's Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, to consider very seriously the Pope's offer to the SSPX of a "universal apostolic administration". Fr. J. suggests that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted such an offer, because "souls aren't the real issue; they're the only issue".

Dear Fr. J., yours is, if I may say so, a noble appeal. You surely grasp the primacy of souls, and the value of pre-Conciliar - meaning Catholic - spirituality. But have you grasped the full depth of the religious war - no less - raging now for 40 years between Conciliarism and Catholicism? Roman or diocesan Conciliarists are of course perfectly free to present to you their side of the case, and they may persuade you that the SSPX and those who think like it are proud, intransigent, divisive, lacking in charity, etc.. But let me here present to you the SSPX's understanding of the matter. And let me start with a parable, from arithmetic.

In olden days, everybody used to think that two and two made four, to the point that nobody even doubted it! But then came modern science, engineering, technology and computers, and people began to doubt the old-fashioned arithmetic. It was, they came to feel, very narrow and limiting and uncreative to think that two and two could only make four! On the contrary it was broad-minded and progressive and up-to-date and altogether more free to think that they might make five, or six or why not - sixty-seven! So one fine day all the arithmeticians woke up to discover that they felt that two and two could make any number they wanted them to make! And since the arithmeticians were all into this New Arithmetic together, then to enjoy their new freedom together, they threw a great party, and they rejoiced exceedingly in their total liberation from two and two making exclusively and only four! What a feeling of freedom!

But then an unpleasant rumour arose amongst them: there was in the boondocks an old arithmetic teacher, named Back Ward, who would not go along with the New Arithmetic. He was apparently still insisting that two and two could only make four!" Hey, he's going to spoil our fun", they said. "He must join in the party!" So they sent a delegation to Back Ward, to bring him around. Whereupon the following conversation ensued: -

Del: Hey, Back, what's wrong with you? Join in the fun! The whole world is now arithmetically free, except you! We're enjoying ourselves! We're in tune with the modern world! Why are you raining on our parade?

B.W.: Arithmetic is a question of truth. Two and two can only make four.

Del.: Of course it is a question of truth! We all know that! And we all know that two and two make four. But now we know that they can make five or fifteen as well as just making four! We have broadened truth!

B.W.: But truth is what it is, independently of all of us arithmeticians. None of us can make two and two equal anything other than what they equal.

Del.: Of course truth is what it is! But what it is broader now than what it was. We have freedom today!

B.W.: But truth cannot change, nor can it be changed.

Del.: Of course truth can't be changed! But we're not changing it. We are merely discovering an extra dimension of truth that modern times have revealed. After all, we're no longer peasants!

B.W.: But two and two can still only make four!!

Del.: Of course two and two make four! But can't you get it into your head that at the same time they can make six or sixty? Computers today can work wonders!

B.W.: Look, if you say two and two can at one and the same time make four or five or six, then you are completely dissolving arithmetic! No number is then what it is, it can be any other number, you have total confusion!

Del.: You think we're confused? We're liberated! We're H-A-P-P-Y!

B.W.: Oh, go to - Heaven!

Del.: Now, you're not being nice. Be careful. If you're not nice, if you don't join us, then we may make things nasty for you!

B.W.: Be my guest. I would rather think straight on my own than think crooked with the whole world.

At which point the delegates gave up trying to persuade Back Ward. But they were resolved in their own minds that he should not be allowed to continue to rain on their parade, and already on their way home they were planning sticks (and even carrots!) with which to bring, or force, him over. And the sticks and carrots continue to this day!

Dear Fr. J., between Conciliarism and Catholicism lies the gulf that lies between two totally different ideas of truth. The gulf could not be deeper. And when the Conciliarists - like, surely, our present Pope - sincerely believe that they believe in Catholicism at the same time that they also believe in Conciliarism, that proves that they have no real grasp of Catholicism, just as the arithmetician who believes that he believes that two and two make four, even while he also believes that they can make five or whatever, proves that he is a dissolver of arithmetic with no understanding at all of what makes arithmetic.

Of course, that two and two making four EXCLUDES two and two making anything else is clear to anybody with a grain of common sense. It is, admittedly, less clear that the Nicene Creed excludes Conciliarism. But - one clear example -Pope Pius XI's "Mortalium Animos" excludes today's ecuмenism. Yet today's ecuмenists do not think so! "'Mortalium Animos' was valid in the 1920's", they will say, "but not from the 1960's onwards". In other words, Truth swings with swinging decades!

Fr. J., are you getting a glimmer of the problem? The Second Vatican Council rests upon principles so opposed to the Catholic Faith that for a Catholic to believe in that Council is like an arithmetician believing that two and two can make both four and five, either at the same time or alternatingly. But to believe such a thing, even alternatingly, is to dissolve arithmetic. Similarly to believe in the Council, even a little bit, is to dissolve the Catholic Faith.

Now all of today's Romans that have any clout believe more or less in Vatican Two. Therefore they have all more or less dissolved the Faith in their own heads, and they are - with however good intentions - dissolving it in the heads of all Catholics world-wide who are following and obeying Rome. The problem could not be more grave, because this dissolution of truth, at a supernatural or natural level, rots the mind. Whosoever accepts Vatican Two will end up losing his mind, while still persuaded that he is being Catholic, following the Pope, etc. etc.. And who loses his mind is well on the way to losing his soul. It is all about souls!

You may ask where all this began, and how it ends. It began, let us say, 700 years ago, in the High Middle Ages, when men began to detach their minds from reality and attach them to fantasy. The process took a giant step forwards with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). St. Pius X said, "Kantism is the modern heresy". In brief, Kant makes truth no longer objective, but subjective, depending upon man's subjective desires or perceptions.

And where does it end? In my gentle opinion the process is today too far gone to end in anything other than a gigantic reality check, human and/or divine. A human World War III is at our doors, but as WWI and WWII were not enough to make modern man change course, so one may doubt whether even a cataclysmic WWIII would bring 21st century man to his knees. In which case the Lord God Himself may well intervene, because the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart promised by our Lady at Fatima and still to come suggests we are not yet at the end of the world. But her Heart cannot triumph amongst Kantians. That is why God may intervene. When in the time of Noah He cleaned up mankind with the Flood, He promised He would never use water again for that purpose. I conclude that Kantism will be cleaned out of the Catholic Church by a deluge of fire...

Dear Fr. J., do read the enclosed letter of Bishop Fellay. He does not speak of a deluge of fire, but he does ask the key question: if Rome wants to offer to the SSPX the most magnificent and suitable of "apostolic administrations", would they found it upon the shifting sands of Vatican Two, or upon the Rock of Peter? That says it all, in a nutshell. The SSPX must wait for Romans to climb back onto the Rock of Peter. Until then, we must pray and do penance. Pray especially the true Mass and the Rosary, do penance especially in Lent, coming up.

May God have mercy upon us all! Dear Friends and Benefactors, always, thank you.

In Christ,

+ Richard Williamson

bobbyva2001 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2012, 11:14:00 AM »

Good opinion short on Williamson's comments:

http://layobserver.wordpress.com/

LordPhan · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2012, 12:28:12 PM »

Quote from: bobbyva2001

Good opinion short on Williamson's comments:

http://layobserver.wordpress.com/

My Response to you and your link, we'll see if it gets posted after "moderation"

Quote

You obviously do not understand the fundemental theology of Obedience, the call “Obedience, Obedience, Obedience” was a Jesuit belief, not a Catholic belief. While it was fine during the times of great Popes, it does not work when there is a traitor on the Papal Throne. There are 3 types of Obedience in the Summa Theologica, the first is lawful obedience, the second is perfect obedience and the third is false obdience. The third is a mortal sin. If you obey a command from a superior that contradicts the law of God, or the natural Law or the dogma’s of the Church etc. Then you are in mortal sin and will not have salvation. This includes unlawful commands of a Pope. The Pope is a man, he is only infallible in his definitions on matters of faith and morals that are decreed to the whole church on pain of not being Catholic(with an Anathema attached) when the matter is one that has always been believed originating from Christ either directly or through his Apostles.

As St. Thomas states -Do you have to obey your superiors in all things? … No, you must obey God in all things-

There is no comparison to the Heretics in Germany calling for unlawful disobience and for his Eminence Bishop Williamson calling for a Lawful disobedience.

Your statement itself fails to distinguish and is contrary to what has always been taught. You are confused one would assume because you have been poisoned by Modernists for so long.

When the Patriarch of Antioch at the Third Council of Constantinople stated and provided proof for his assertion that the Pope Honorius had given him permission to alter a line in the Creed, the Papal Legates sent by Pope St. Agatho I and later promulgated and confirmed by Pope St. Leo II in 4 Papal Letters and the Council itself stated that the only thing that, that proved was that Honorius was condemned too.

As the Council later affirmed and the letters of Pope St. Leo II laters attested to, Honorius was condemned as a Heretic for merely approving of a heresy or aiding it through ambigious language. He was proclaimed a traitor to the Church, those who disobeyed were praised and those who obeyed condemned.

See Kirsch, C., Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae. ED. 4 Friburgi, 1923. for the letters condemning Honorius and decribing why he was condemned.(Note they are in Latin, so learn it)
See also the Third Council of Constantinople “So now that these points have been formulated by us with all precision in every respect and with all care, we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated. ”

See also Summa Theologica Second Part, Question 104.

bobbyva2001 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2012, 01:27:31 PM »

You use an argument protestants use against papal infallibility(Honorius). Honorius did nothing that would compromise papal infallibility as it laid out in VI.

What errors has the pope promulgated that have altered the teachings of the Church?? Meaning what ex cathedra teachings(none of course) has he advanced that would obligate you to violate your conscience and thus force you to be disobedient? How about Bishop Williamson? Was he excommunicated because the Church said they didn't like what he had to say about VII? Was Bishop Lefebvre excommunicated or suspended because he trashed Paul VI or declared some of teachings of VII to be incorrect? Were any of the bishops excommunicated for preaching against the council?

They could have stayed in the Church, been obedient, and continued to preach as they wished without being suspended, just like they will be if they are welcomed back into the fold.

bobbyva2001 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2012, 03:06:49 PM »

Furthermore, they were condemned from within the Church by a Council, not by excommunicates. Prove it, where has the Pope taught error in such a way as to change the faith?

LordPhan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2012, 10:28:56 PM »

Quote from: bobbyva2001

You use an argument protestants use against papal infallibility(Honorius). Honorius did nothing that would compromise papal infallibility as it laid out in VI.

What errors has the pope promulgated that have altered the teachings of the Church?? Meaning what ex cathedra teachings(none of course) has he advanced that would obligate you to violate your conscience and thus force you to be disobedient? How about Bishop Williamson? Was he excommunicated because the Church said they didn't like what he had to say about VII? Was Bishop Lefebvre excommunicated or suspended because he trashed Paul VI or declared some of teachings of VII to be incorrect? Were any of the bishops excommunicated for preaching against the council?

They could have stayed in the Church, been obedient, and continued to preach as they wished without being suspended, just like they will be if they are welcomed back into the fold.

You are an idiot sir, I never once stated anything about an Ex Cathedra teaching, I am saying the current Pope has not stated anything Ex Cathedra, if he attempted to do so in favour of his errors he would be ipso facto a formal Heretic before he finished the sentence and therefore no longer the Pope.

Archbishop Lefebre and the other SSPX Bishops were never Excommunicated, that is clear in the Code of Canon Law both the 1917 and 1983 codes. You are being fed faulty information by modernists who want to send you to hell.

Do you believe that St. Athanasius was Excommunicated? It was declared against him, but it was null and void. You must disobey any order that contradicts what has always been believed, you must disobey any order that contradicts God's Laws, Divine law and the natural Law, you must disobey any order that puts you in a position that is a danger to the faith. You do not understand this and I am sorry for you.

I suggest you pray the Rosary asking our blessed mother for the truth. If you are sincere you will be led to it, or perhaps you have been led to it here.. but you are stubborn and refuse to listen.

We are not like Protestants, you and those who attend a Protestant mass(Novus Ordo) created by a Freemason are the Protestant heretics who mock the faith and put yourselves outside the Church, we are not outside the Church, we cannot be outside, we follow what has always been believed, those who believe novelties and deny Dogma's such as the Novus Ordo, put themselves outside the Church. To deny one Dogma is to deny them all and those who do so are condemned to eternal hellfire.

By their fruits you shall know them, we are on pace to outgrow the Novus Ordo within 100 years. Just like the Arian Crisis where 80% of the Church went Heretic and the Great St. Athanasius battled against the Heirarchy so we too will be vindicated and most of the Heirarchy will be condemned as it was then.