Could it be that Pope Francis is really a secret friend of Tradition?

Could it be that Pope Francis is really a secret friend of Tradition?

Here's the best answer I could give to you by pasting the words of Bishop Williamson

Bishop Williamson Holds Forth on Sedevacantism


Number CCCLVII (357)

17th May 2014

CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY -- III

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.


But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.

However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, they conclude.

Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.

Kyrie eleison.

If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.

Quote from: irirfleo

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.
(...)
However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story.

This argumentation by +Williamson is a perfect illustration of the problems with many supporters of R&R position. They focus on the doctrine of Papal infallibility, correctly stating that Vatican II was not infallible. What they miss however is indefectibility of the Church, which is a different doctrine - R&R's often confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and Church's indefectibility or ignore the latter one altogether. Even though Vatican II was not infallible, it is still part of the Magisterium and it is impossible for the Ecuмenical Council to lead 98% of the Church astray, which is exactly what happened. Can a valid Pope promulgate the docuмents of the Ecuмenical Council which will cause destruction of the faith in majority of the Catholic world? This has nothing to do with Papal infallibility as defined by Pastor Aeternus, but everything to do with the Church's indefectibility.

I can't find the error in Bishop Williamson words in this part

Bishop Williamson: "But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists. "

Where is the logical error?

Quote from: irirfleo

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: irirfleo

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.
(...)
However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story.

This argumentation by +Williamson is a perfect illustration of the problems with many supporters of R&R position. They focus on the doctrine of Papal infallibility, correctly stating that Vatican II was not infallible. What they miss however is indefectibility of the Church, which is a different doctrine - R&R's often confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and Church's indefectibility or ignore the latter one altogether. Even though Vatican II was not infallible, it is still part of the Magisterium and it is impossible for the Ecuмenical Council to lead 98% of the Church astray, which is exactly what happened. Can a valid Pope promulgate the docuмents of the Ecuмenical Council which will cause destruction of the faith in majority of the Catholic world? This has nothing to do with Papal infallibility as defined by Pastor Aeternus, but everything to do with the Church's indefectibility.

I can't find the error in Bishop Williamson words in this part

Quote

Bishop Williamson: "But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists. "

Where is the logical error?

There is no error per se, rather omission. Bishop Williamson tackled the issue of V2 in the context of Papal infallibility, but he failed to cosindier its implications for Church's indefectibility. In other words - even though Bishop Williamson correctly states that V2 was not infallible, it is still impossible for a valid Ecuмenical Council to cause a massive apostasy in most of the Catholic world, as this would mean defection of the Church - this is something that +Williamson did not address, focusing only on the issue of infallibility.

I tend to think God allowed this to happen to see how many Catholics in fact are inside the Church. I know by this opinion one concludes that God wouldn't allow the Council to teach error. That's also true. So when I think about the VII and Bishop Williamson comments I know that I have to study more to see this issue clearer.