Author Topic: Bishop Williamson Against the Sedevacantists: (Read 5061 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** December 22, 2013, 07:06:56 PM »

Here follows an incomplete chronological list of Bishop Williamson's various condemnations, refutations, warnings, and reservations against the (various) sedevacantist position(s), as expressed within the 4-part "Letters from the Rector series:

Letters from the Rector (Volume I):

1) Forward: Regarding "The Nine" (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre; 4-28-83);

2) Misleading Arguments (10-3-83)

3) The Archbishop Unswerving (3-1-84)

Letters from the Rector (Volume II):

1) Sedevacantism Not Obligatory (4-1-90)
(Note: If you tink the title of the article implies Bishop Williamson considers it an optional position, you had better read the Letter; it is a 5 page refutation of the position)

2) Sedevacantism Fails to Grasp Modern Mind Rot (7-1-90)

3) Sedevacantism: Too Simplistic; Too Absolute (3-5-92)

Letters from the Rector (Volume III):

1) Neither Sedevacantist Nor Liberal (2-4-98)

Letters from the Rector (Volume IV):

1) Campos: What Went Wrong? (6-1-02)

2) Newchurch "Canonizations" (12-6-02)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2013, 07:10:19 PM »

On a related note from a previous thread, Volume 1 (p. 215) explains how:

"Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church, yet not necessarily thereby excommunicated or out of the Church. The Archbishop has always taken this position."

Obviously, this has implications which mitigate against sedevacantism.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2013, 07:21:57 PM »

Sean, I think we will need to wait out on this to see where Mgr. Williamson is going with his latest olive branch to sedevacantism.

As you point out, he has consistently spoken against sedevacantism in the past, at least under the John Paul II's pontificate. Nevertheless, it is often within the context of leaving the door to sedevacantism open to a future pontiff. Of course, he never could have sold sedevacante under Pope Benedict, so he suspended speculation on this matter during that time.

The question now becomes whether Mgr. Williamson's feels Francis is that future pontiff that Mgr Williamson keeps speculating would not be validly elected.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** December 22, 2013, 07:29:56 PM »

[code]Interestingly enough, however, his letter of 12-1-96 (FAQ on the Future of the Church and the SSPX) contains the following asterisk on p. 175:

"There is no serious reason to believe that the Conclave of 2005 which elected Benedict XVI was invalid. Perhaps the fears expressed here may yet apply to some Conclave in the future. -BpW, 2009).

Another similar asterisk appears at the end of his 2-4-98 letter, "Neither Sedevacantist nor Liberal":

"Nothing so far indicates that the election of Benedict XVI was invalid, but a truly vacant Apostolic See remains a possibility after him, today's confusion. -BpW, 2009).

However, there is nothing to indicate Bishop Williamson considered this determination would be left individual clerics and laymen (i.e., rather than a juridical act of the Church).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2013, 07:34:20 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Sean, I think we will need to wait out on this to see where Mgr. Williamson is going with his latest olive branch to sedevacantism.

As you point out, he has consistently spoken against sedevacantism in the past, at least under the John Paul II's pontificate. Nevertheless, it is often within the context of leaving the door to sedevacantism open to a future pontiff. Of course, he never could have sold sedevacante under Pope Benedict, so he suspended speculation on this matter during that time.

The question now becomes whether Mgr. Williamson's feels Francis is that future pontiff that Mgr Williamson keeps speculating would not be validly elected.

And of course, the latest theory in that regard is that a Pope who ascends to the Throne based on the coerced abdication of his predecessor (i.e., BXVI) is no validly elected Pope.

Problem with that theory, even if it could hold, is that there is no proof of coercion.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** December 22, 2013, 08:33:27 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere
Sean, I think we will need to wait out on this to see where Mgr. Williamson is going with his latest olive branch to sedevacantism.

As you point out, he has consistently spoken against sedevacantism in the past, at least under the John Paul II's pontificate. Nevertheless, it is often within the context of leaving the door to sedevacantism open to a future pontiff. Of course, he never could have sold sedevacante under Pope Benedict, so he suspended speculation on this matter during that time.

The question now becomes whether Mgr. Williamson's feels Francis is that future pontiff that Mgr Williamson keeps speculating would not be validly elected.

And of course, the latest theory in that regard is that a Pope who ascends to the Throne based on the coerced abdication of his predecessor (i.e., BXVI) is no validly elected Pope.

Problem with that theory, even if it could hold, is that there is no proof of coercion.

Oh but there is proof Sean....

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=4700.0

and this position is quickly being embraced by large numbers of traditionalists. As soon as Francis moves on to more important things like marrying fαɢs or ordaining women this position will become the most popular. Brace yourself and pray 3 rosaries a day as Mons. Williamson has said.

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2013, 09:18:19 PM »

Bp Williamson was able to get into the Philippines to do Confirmations there..But the Australian govt, displaying the degree to which it's controlled by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, wouldn't allow HEBW to enter the country..A country ( now I wish it was still formally a colony of the UK ) that has QE II on it's money wouldn't allow this son of England to enter...Disgraceful! :reporter:

Pete Vere · « **Reply #7 on:** December 22, 2013, 09:35:36 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Interestingly enough, however, his letter of 12-1-96 (FAQ on the Future of the Church and the SSPX) contains the following asterisk on p. 175: "There is no serious reason to believe that the Conclave of 2005 which elected Benedict XVI was invalid. Perhaps the fears expressed here may yet apply to some Conclave in the future. -BpW, 2009).

Another similar asterisk appears at the end of his 2-4-98 letter, "Neither Sedevacantist nor Liberal": "Nothing so far indicates that the election of Benedict XVI was invalid, but a truly vacant Apostolic See remains a possibility after him, today's confusion. -BpW, 2009).

I think it is consistent with his beliefs during John Paul II's papacy. Keep in mind Mgr Williamson's leaving open the possibility of sedevacante under Pope John Paul II's successor was in keeping with his speculation that the successor would be someone like Cardinal Mahoney. I don't think he (or very many traditionalists, myself included) believed that Cardinal Ratzinger would be elected pope. And in fairness to R&R traditionalists, even a number of soft sedevacantists struggled to maintain their position under Benedict's papacy.

Also, during this time Mgr Williamson was experiencing fallout from his other controversial opinions that had nothing to do with potential sedevacante.

That being said, I appreciate you pointing out these added footnotes from Mgr. Williamson, since I had always assumed he had simply "kept quiet" or "suspended" his sede-speculation during Benedict's papacy. However, it is clear from these footnotes that while he continued to reject sedevacantism in the present, he also continued to remain open to it as a future possibility.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2013, 09:46:24 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

And of course, the latest theory in that regard is that a Pope who ascends to the Throne based on the coerced abdication of his predecessor (i.e., BXVI) is no validly elected Pope.

Problem with that theory, even if it could hold, is that there is no proof of coercion.

Agreed. Which is why I simply don't see sedebenedictplenism as a viable variant of sedevacantism. Actually, I consider it less viable than Siri-vacantism.

That being said, I can understand how some R&R - particularly those who chase alleged prophecies and apparitions - might be drawn to it, given that the "two popes" theme is common throughout many of these alleged prophecies and apparitions.

And this is what most concerns me about Mgr Williamson's current detente being proposed between the Resistance and sedevacantism. Very few traditionalist writers today seem to possess as wide a knowledge and awareness of alleged apocalyptic prophecies and apparitions as Mgr Williamson. So it would not surprise me to see Mgr Wiliamson lead the Resistance down this road.

The difficulty I have with sedebenedictplenism is that it brings together the weaknesses of both sedevacantism and R&R traditionalism.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2013, 09:47:59 PM »

This topic is about as useful to argue about as Baptism of Desire. Gosh can't we just give it a rest?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2013, 09:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Interestingly enough, however, his letter of 12-1-96 (FAQ on the Future of the Church and the SSPX) contains the following asterisk on p. 175: "There is no serious reason to believe that the Conclave of 2005 which elected Benedict XVI was invalid. Perhaps the fears expressed here may yet apply to some Conclave in the future. -BpW, 2009).

Another similar asterisk appears at the end of his 2-4-98 letter, "Neither Sedevacantist nor Liberal": "Nothing so far indicates that the election of Benedict XVI was invalid, but a truly vacant Apostolic See remains a possibility after him, today's confusion. -BpW, 2009).

I think it is consistent with his beliefs during John Paul II's papacy. Keep in mind Mgr Williamson's leaving open the possibility of sedevacante under Pope John Paul II's successor was in keeping with his speculation that the successor would be someone like Cardinal Mahoney. I don't think he (or very many traditionalists, myself included) believed that Cardinal Ratzinger would be elected pope. And in fairness to R&R traditionalists, even a number of soft sedevacantists struggled to maintain their position under Benedict's papacy.

Also, during this time Mgr Williamson was experiencing fallout from his other controversial opinions that had nothing to do with potential sedevacante.

That being said, I appreciate you pointing out these added footnotes from Mgr. Williamson, since I had always assumed he had simply "kept quiet" or "suspended" his sede-speculation during Benedict's papacy. However, it is clear from these footnotes that while he continued to reject sedevacantism in the present, he also continued to remain open to it as a future possibility.

Pete Vere, you amaze me with your plethora of knowledge while remaining to be a complete idiot. And only gullible people believe you're really Pete Vere by the way.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2013, 10:00:47 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Oh but there is proof Sean....

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=4700.0

and this position is quickly being embraced by large numbers of traditionalists.

The problem with sedebenedictplenism is that it is inherently self-contradictory in that several times since his retirement Pope Emeritus Benedict has appeared in public with his successor Pope Francis. During these public appearances Pope Emeritus Benedict has also both recognize and subjected himself to Pope Francis as the valid Roman Pontiff.

Therefore, if Benedict were the valid Roman Pontiff, and Francis were an anti-pope, then Benedict would commit an act of schism or apostasy in knowingly recognizing and subjecting himself publicly to Francis as Roman Pontiff. At which point the usual sedevacantist arguments against a public schismatic or apostate validly holding papal office applies.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2013, 10:03:02 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Pete Vere, you amaze me with your plethora of knowledge while remaining to be a complete idiot. And only gullible people believe you're really Pete Vere by the way.

Well that's a relief then. As a complete idiot I possess enough gullibility to continue believing I'm Pete Vere.

Tiffany · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2013, 10:04:25 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Sean, I think we will need to wait out on this to see where Mgr. Williamson is going with his latest olive branch to sedevacantism.

As you point out, he has consistently spoken against sedevacantism in the past, at least under the John Paul II's pontificate. Nevertheless, it is often within the context of leaving the door to sedevacantism open to a future pontiff. Of course, he never could have sold sedevacante under Pope Benedict, so he suspended speculation on this matter during that time.

The question now becomes whether Mgr. Williamson's feels Francis is that future pontiff that Mgr Williamson keeps speculating would not be validly elected.

Peter I don't think Bp Williamson preaches based on what will sell, he is forthright not a manipulator.

Tiffany · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2013, 10:07:39 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Interestingly enough, however, his letter of 12-1-96 (FAQ on the Future of the Church and the SSPX) contains the following asterisk on p. 175: "There is no serious reason to believe that the Conclave of 2005 which elected Benedict XVI was invalid. Perhaps the fears expressed here may yet apply to some Conclave in the future. -BpW, 2009).

Another similar asterisk appears at the end of his 2-4-98 letter, "Neither Sedevacantist nor Liberal": "Nothing so far indicates that the election of Benedict XVI was invalid, but a truly vacant Apostolic See remains a possibility after him, today's confusion. -BpW, 2009).

I think it is consistent with his beliefs during John Paul II's papacy. Keep in mind Mgr Williamson's leaving open the possibility of sedevacante under Pope John Paul II's successor was in keeping with his speculation that the successor would be someone like Cardinal Mahoney. I don't think he (or very many traditionalists, myself included) believed that Cardinal Ratzinger would be elected pope. And in fairness to R&R traditionalists, even a number of soft sedevacantists struggled to maintain their position under Benedict's papacy.

Also, during this time Mgr Williamson was experiencing fallout from his other controversial opinions that had nothing to do with potential sedevacante.

That being said, I appreciate you pointing out these added footnotes from Mgr. Williamson, since I had always assumed he had simply "kept quiet" or "suspended" his sede-speculation during Benedict's papacy. However, it is clear from these footnotes that while he continued to reject sedevacantism in the present, he also continued to remain open to it as a future possibility.

Pete Vere, you amaze me with your plethora of knowledge while remaining to be a complete idiot. And only gullible people believe you're really Pete Vere by the way.

Whoever the username Peter is or isn't they are being cordial, no need to call names like idiot.