Author Topic: Bp. Williamson and Sedevacantism (Read 1241 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** February 08, 2014, 06:26:42 AM »

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/williamson-sedevacantism-1.htm

fast777 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2014, 05:00:09 PM »

The words and deeds of Pope Francis since his election earlier last year have been so little Catholic and so outrageous, that the idea that recent popes have not really been Popes (”sedevacantism”) has been given a new lease of life. Notice that Pope Francis merely expresses more blatantly than his five predecessors the madness of Vatican II. The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.
(Most Rev. Richard Williamson, "Sedevacantist Anxiety I", Eleison Comments
CCCXLI)
_____________________
4 Modernism is “the synthesis of all heresies”(Pius X). But the Conciliar Popes have all been “public and manifest” modernists, i.e. heretics of such a kind as St Robert Bellarmine declared cannot be members of the Church, let alone its head. See last week’s “Comments”. Things were much more clear, or “public and manifest”, in Bellarmine’s day, than they are amidst today’s confusion of minds and hearts.The objective heresy of the Concilar Popes (i.e. what they say) is public and manifest, but not their subjective or formal heresy (i.e. their conscious and resolute intention to deny what they know to be unchangeable Catholic dogma). And to prove their formal heresy could only be done by a confrontation with the Church’s doctrinal authority, e.g. the Inquisition or the Holy Office, call it what one will (“A rose by any name would smell as sweet”, says Shakespeare). But the Pope is himself the Church’s highest doctrinal authority, above and behind today’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. How then can he be proved to be that kind of heretic that is incapable of being head of the Church ?

5 But in that case the Church is in a hopeless mess ! Again, see last week’s “Comments”. Men’s minds are today so universally messed up that God alone can straighten out the mess. But this objection may prove rather that he must intervene (and soon !) than that the messed up Popes are not Popes. Patience. God is putting us to the trial, as he has every right to do. Anxiety II

fast777 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2014, 05:10:00 PM »

I remember years ago when my dearly beloved Mother was in the confessional and the Priest bellowed out....do you follow the Pope? He asked twice and the whole parish turned and looked.

Do not fault me if I say my Mother is in Heaven. She has given me the greatest gift through God.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2014, 05:45:29 AM »

The writer of this article says so much (in blue) with so few words. A mark of an excellent writer. But even more importantly he is correct:

On Jan. 25, 2014, Bp. Richard Williamson, formerly with the Society of St. Pius X, released issue no. 341 of his Eleison Comments, which are sent out on a weekly basis to subscribers by email. In this particular installment, His Excellency once again returns to the topic of sedevacantism. He writes:

The words and deeds of Pope Francis since his election earlier last year have been so little Catholic and so outrageous, that the idea that recent popes have not really been Popes (”sedevacantism”) has been given a new lease of life. Notice that Pope Francis merely expresses more blatantly than his five predecessors the madness of Vatican II. The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

(Most Rev. Richard Williamson, "Sedevacantist Anxiety I", Eleison Comments CCCXLI)

Already we must stop here for a moment and consider what the English bishop is saying. He describes the words and actions of Francis as "so little Catholic", as though one could have more or less of Catholicism. This contradicts directly what was taught by Pope Benedict XV in his inaugural encyclical Ad Beatissimi: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (par. 24; italics added).

[Sarcasm alert] But great minds disagree with the above writer, therefore the above writer is a simpleton and quite possibly an extremist and might be crazy and or insane.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2014, 08:46:31 AM »

I studied under Bishop Williamson for several years at St. Thomas Aquinas seminary. He is a terrific thinker and a brilliant man. I enjoyed many hours of individual conversation with His Excellency in addition to many hours in the classroom and listening to his spiritual conferences.

His Excellency had a MAJOR emphasis on returning intellectually to the objectivity of truth and traced all the modern theological problems to increasing subjectivity.

He was SPOT ON, and I lapped up every word of his. He gave many sermons about how what counts today is "nitheness" (niceness said with a heavy lisp) and not truth.

In fact, it's His Excellency's thinking that led me to reject the notion of Baptism of Desire without actual objective material Catholic faith ... though I don't want to digress here about that.

Consequently, I find his defense of the Vatican II popes on the grounds of "sincerity" and "nitheness" to be absolutely inexplicable. We can never judge the internal forum. Even Church theologians say that De internis Ecclesia non judicat, that the Church makes no judgments regarding the internal forum.

All we can go by is what we can see and perceive and objectively know, and by all those indicators Francis DOES NOT HAVE THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

That's why the Dimonds' latest take on sedevacantism is very interesting ... since it puts aside all these questions of "sincerity" and relies upon the Church's teaching that those who do not PROFESS the Catholic faith are not in fact Catholic. That's why St. Robert Bellarmine emphasizes the idea of MANIFEST heresy vs. formal / material heresy.

Bishop Williamson clearly has some emotional attachments to the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre and had many bad experiences since having been the Archbishop's point man in dealing with THE NINE in the U.S. when that all came down.

But if His Excellency wanted to remain consistent with his CORE principles, he would reject these "sincerity" and "nitheness" arguments in defense of the V2 papal claimants. He's in self-contradiction on the subject. He points (so very rightly) to SUBJECTIVITY as the root cause of all the Vatican II errors, and yet His Excellency applies the very same considerations from subjectivity that LED TO ALL THE VATICAN II ERRORS ?????? How? It's the very theology of Church membership coming from "sincerity" that led to the V2 ecclesiology and soteriology. So then why does His Excellency use "Catholicism by sincerity" to include Francis in the Church?

If "nitheness" makes one Catholic, the "subsistit" ecclesiology of Vatican II is correct, Your Excellency.

If "nitheness" and "sincerity" are salvific, Your Excellency, then Religious Liberty is correct.

If "nitheness" makes one Catholic, Your Excellency, then we have many separated brethren among the Protestants and infidels, who are truly Catholic due to their sincerity.

Suddenly you have the Vatican II ecclesiology, with a subsistent formal/material core consisting of those who ACTUALLY have the Catholic faith along with all these invisible satellite members who are part of the Church by way of sincerity and nitheness.

Come on, Your Excellency; with all due respect, you're much more intelligent than that.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2014, 10:50:43 AM »

There is a disconnect by otherwise intelligent and learned individuals on the issue. I have heard the following reasons why. Some are plants trying to destroy what is left of the faithful remnant through the divide and conquer route (Ratzinger did this), some for money (Fatima Apostolate?), some because of emotion (many laypeople and perhaps not to few clergy), some for convenience (laity and clergy), some because of policy (SSPX), some are plants (they keep the fact that they are plants a secret for some reason so I cannot give any examples), some are ignorant (those laity and clergy that follow the plants, profitable apostolates, armchair lay theologians such a Vennari and Ferrara, people who give their own teachings on the Papacy as opposed to Church teaching. Some are willfully blind for any number of reasons. They have their Pope and (b)eat him. It great fun. They "win" either way. Fence sitting is fun if you have a padded behind.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:20:50 AM »

Quote

Catholicism does not come in degrees, but it is easy to see why His Excellency would pretend otherwise: because this qualification of people as "somewhat Catholic" or "more or less Catholic" is extremely convenient when having to defend one's resistance against Jorge Bergoglio while at the same time also denying that the man is an Antipope. With only the two rather rigid concepts of "Catholic" and "non-Catholic" to choose from, the "recognize-and-resist" position is pushed against the wall. This is why they love to remain vague and ambiguous and shy away from defining terms and from making clear assertions. This is why they love to talk about the "new orientation" which they despise, or the "pastoral council" they resist, or the "Newpope" they refuse to go along with.