This short video presents an excellent summary of Bishop Williamson's postions. It was recorded in October 2018.


Bishop Williamson 2018: sedevacantism and Bishop Faure's seminary  

I have to wonder why +W felt that he needed to confirm that he is in agreement with Bp. Faure as regards sedevacantism.

Good question.  There's probably a growing sympathy with sedevacantism in the Resistance ... due to Bergoglio.  Heck, you have people in the Novus Ordo suggesting the same thing.

But notice +William's position ... which he claims (rightly) is identical to that of +Lefebvre.  He says that -- "maybe, maybe, maybe" they are illegitimate.  That we wait for the Church to make the final decision and than act in the practical order as if they're legitimate.

Does this sound like a man who holds the legitimacy of the Conciliar papal claimants to be dogmatic fact?  That is the ordinary level at which Catholics must hold it, as dogma.  There can be absolutely no "maybe" about it.

Consequently, neither +Lefebvre nor +Williamson are actually sedeplenists, and they most certainly do not hold their legitimacy as dogmatic fact.  Hey, XavierSem, a shout-out to you, did you catch this?

Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t completely rule it out. He was careful with how he said things like “one day, Paul VI and John Paul II May be declared antipopes”. He never formally espouse sedevacantism though. He had his famous “I do not say there is no Pope, but i do not say one cannot say there is no Pope!” To Fr Cekada.

We know that he didn't completely rule it out. That doesn't mean that he was a sedevacantist. He was not, though the many sedes here will say that he would be a sedevacantist now. But no, he wouldn't. He wasn't stupid.

OK, please try to follow the reason, would you, children?

Papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

Consequently, papal legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith.

But +Williamson and +Lefebvre said it's possible that they have not been legitimate.

Consequently, their legitimacy lacks the certainty of faith.

Consequently, they are not sedeplenists in the Catholic sense, but sede-doubtists.

Nonsense. You want to make that +W and Lefebvre were in positive doubt as to the legitimacy of the Popes. They have never claimed this. And that is one of the reasons why you and others here undermine the Resistance, with the blessings of the forum owner.

bzzzzzt.  Positive and Negative doubt do not apply when it comes to doubting a matter of faith.  One does not say, "I have doubts about the Holy Trinity, but these are negative doubts rather than positive doubts."  That distinction doesn't apply.  If one consents (with the will) to doubts about a matter of faith, one commits a grave sin against the faith (positive, negative, or otherwise).  Since matters of faith cannot be proven (or disproven) through reason, there's no such things as a positive doubt vs. a negative doubt.

If +Williamson and +Lefebvre were true sedeplenists, then they would no more call into question the legitimacy of Bergoglio et al. than they would publicly question whether Our Lady was immaculately conceived.  So please try not to hurt yourself following the logic, Meg.

So I am undermining the Resistance by speaking the truth about +Williamson's position?  We have him RIGHT HERE ON VIDEO saying that "maybe, maybe, maybe" the Vatican II popes have been illegitimate, just we cannot make the final decision but must defer to the Church's authority.  In other words, the truth is that +Williamson is NOT a dogmatic sedeplenist, and there not a sedeplenist in the Catholic sense.  He is in effect a sede-doubtist, as was +Lefebvre.

I still remember how Sean Johnson started spitting nails when I made this same argument.  He refused to accept that +Lefebvre had the same position, that he believed it possible that they have been illegitimate, but was simply deferring to the Church, and as +Williamson stated on this video, considered it most prudent ad "safest" to act, in the practical order, as if they were popes, until the Church decided otherwise.  When I produced quotations from +Lefebvre stating exactly that, he demanded that I be banned, thew a tantrum, and quit the forum (only to come back shortly in the Anonymous forum).  So now you follow suit.

I am undermining nothing.  Watch this video.  You tell me that +Williamson did not repeat over and over again that "maybe, maybe, maybe" these Popes have been illegitimate.  That's exactly what he said.  You are in total denial, Meg.  Stop being a baby about this.

WHERE did I claim he was a sedevacantist?  

For crying out loud, you people.  

If you read my posts, I never said that you said that, all I said was that the Archbishop has doubts, and was not ever formally a sedevacantist. So I have basically agreed with everything you’ve said. 

I don't see how anyone could meaningfully say for sure whether Lefebvre would or wouldn't be a Sedevacantist if he was alive today.  THere are just way too many variables to say for sure.  I think in some ways the case for Sedevacantism (which I do not hold to) is stronger than it was in '88, but in other ways its weaker.  John Paul II was not as anti-Catholic as Francis when you look at his own statements, but he was *far* more anti Latin mass at the time.  

As far as what Williamson says, he clearly thinks that Francis' papacy *could* be invalid.  I have no idea why anyone's bothering to object to the fact that he said that.  That's a logically separate issue from insisting on una cuм.  I actually think its completely consistent to say that the Church *could* declare the see vacant, and yet still say its schismatic to act as though its anything but occupied *until* the Church makes said declaration.  I don't think its right, but I think its valid.

The biggest thing I don't get about this whole thing, and I realize saying this is going to probably upset some people, but I don't see how the SSPX Resistance acts as though the seat is occupied.  TBH, if the seat is probably or definitely occupied, Bishop Fellay's approach (at least from what I understand of it) seems to make more sense.  We won't celebrate the Novus Ordo, we won't condone it, but we want to be in communion with the Church as long as *we* are not being forced to compromise.  By contrast, the Resistance line seems to be much more "we won't be in communion with compromisers.... yet we still think Francis is the Pope".... which doesn't make much sense to me.  Its one thing to disobey one's hierarchical superior if he demands you compromise on your faith, but its quite another thing to do so because he tolerates people you think should be excommunicated (to be fair many of them should be) and such.  I suppose I could make sense of a position that says "he's probably not pope, but we'll pray for him just in case he is" but that doesn't seem to be the SSPX-Resistance line either.  

It seems to me that Williamson prays for the pope, but in other ways acts as though the seat is vacant.  Does he actually obey the pope in any way?  Does he even want to be in communion with him?  Isn't that why the SSPX Resistance separated from the SSPX?  

Of course, you could point out that Lefebvre did the same thing.  But that seems different to me for one big reason.  The Tridentine Mass was in imminent danger of eradication.  There wasn't even, as far as I know, *such thing* as the indult, until after Lefebvre's consecrations (sure seems to me like Lefebvre's consecrations forced Rome to the bargaining table.)  When you're facing the imminent eradication of the Tridentine Mass, and very possibly any real episcopal resistance to modernism, disobeying your legitimate hierarch seems like a reasonable thing to do.  From Williamson, it does seem like a practical belief that the See is Vacant (and thus, wanting nothing to do with it.)

What am I missing here?