Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Ecclesiology Attacked (Read 10707 times)

Nathan · « **on:** December 24, 2012, 04:07:53 PM »

I am sure many of you have probably seen Fr. Laisney's rebuttal of Bishop Williamson's (BW) EC 281 of Dec. 1, 2012, Various Churches. It is very disappointing to see words being put into BW's mouth, silently condemning him for "false ideas" about the Church. BW has always desired to be absolutely faithful to the teaching and leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre (ABL), that is clear by everything he says and writes, and his words should be interpreted as such. For example, Fr. L. accuses BW of saying that the Catholic Church exists only in a part of the Church (the "Traditionalists"), and not in the Official Church, thereby depriving it of its divine constitution, i.e. the hierarchy. This is absurd, not only because of what BW affirms in the end of his letter (about the wheat and chaff), but also because if this were true, the "Traditionalist" part would lose one of its marks: APOSTOLICITY! BW states that the Conciliar Church (which is most of the Official Church) is rot on the apple, not a separate apple. There have been many times in Church history when the hierarchy has been in error, immorality, and sometimes downright chaos (the Great Schism). It is up to God to bring it back around, as He has always done. Ironically, its seems that EC 281 in fact paraphrases the quotes from ABL given at the end of Fr. L's refutation!

Sadly, this is just another example of the Society's change in orientation.

P.S. BW's lions example was probably not the most logical in the book, but it is easy to see what he means!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** December 24, 2012, 04:09:49 PM »

Straw-man fallacies are common amongst people with liberal minsets, and anyone who could possibly support a deal with modernist Rome has to have a liberal mindset to at least some degree.

bowler · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2012, 05:10:25 PM »

Quote from: Nathan

I am sure many of you have probably seen Fr. Laisney's rebuttal of Bishop Williamson's (BW) EC 281 of Dec. 1, 2012, Various Churches.

Where is it? Post it here.

Nathan · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2012, 05:33:04 PM »

Here you go:

Various Churches? Fr. Francois Laisney

If you have not read BW's EC 281, you can find it here:

EC 281: Various "Churches"

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2012, 05:54:29 PM »

What does Fr. Laisney hope to prove by attacking a strawman, when +Williamson is saying the same thing is he is? False characterization of +Williamson's opposition to the current SSPX leadership?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2012, 05:55:28 PM »

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote

Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?

Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

Nathan · « **Reply #6 on:** December 24, 2012, 07:36:26 PM »

Great quote, Telesphorus! If only Fr. L. had taken it into account, or been aware of it (assuming the best), he could have saved his time and trouble. Could you give me the source? When you can include the source text it gives the quote more weight for those on the offensive.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 24, 2012, 07:45:29 PM »

Quote from: Nathan

Great quote, Telesphorus! If only Fr. L. had taken it into account, or been aware of it (assuming the best), he could have saved his time and trouble. Could you give me the source? When you can include the source text it gives the quote more weight for those on the offensive.

It's from "One Year After the Consecrations" - I'm sure Father Laisney knows the source.

PAT317 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 24, 2012, 08:07:42 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Nathan
Great quote, Telesphorus! If only Fr. L. had taken it into account, or been aware of it (assuming the best), he could have saved his time and trouble. Could you give me the source? When you can include the source text it gives the quote more weight for those on the offensive.

It's from "One Year After the Consecrations" - I'm sure Father Laisney knows the source.

One year after the Consecrations - An Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre

Quote

3: "Lefebvre should have stayed in the Church".

Question: Some people say, "Yes, but Archbishop Lefebvre should have accepted an agreement with Rome because once the Society of St. Pius X had been recognized and the suspensions lifted, he would have been able to act in a more effective manner inside the Church, whereas now he has put himself outside."

Archbishop Lefebvre: Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.

Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing, I could have protected neither the faithful nor the seminarians. Rome would have said to me, "Alright, we'll give you such and such a bishop to carry out the ordinations, and your seminarians will have to accept the professors coming from such and such a diocese." That's impossible. In the Fraternity of St. Peter, they have professors coming from the diocese of Augsburg. Who are these professors? What do they teach?

4: Danger of schism?

Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?

Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

Mr. Madiran objects: "But the official Church also has Infallibility." However, on the subject of infallibility, we must say, as Fr. Dulac said in a suggestive phrase concerning Pope Paul VI: "When years ago the Church had several popes, one could choose from amongst them. But now we have two popes in one." We have no choice. Each of these recent popes is truly two popes in one. Insofar as they represent Tradition - the Tradition of the popes, the Tradition of infallibility - we are in agreement with the pope. We are attached to him insofar as he continues the succession of Peter, and because of the promises of infallibility which have been made to him. It is we who are attached to his infallibility. But he, even if in certain respects he carries the infallibility within his being pope, nevertheless by his intentions and ideas he is opposed to it because he wants nothing more to do with infallibility. He does not believe in it and he makes no acts stamped with the stamp of infallibility.

That is why they wanted Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive Truth. The Truth must live and must evolve. It may eventually change with time, with history, with knowledge, etc., ...whereas infallibility fixes a formula once and for all, it makes - stamps - a Truth as unchangeable. That is something they can't believe in, and that is why we are the supporters of infallibility and the Conciliar Church is not. The Conciliar Church is against infallibility - that's for sure and certain.

Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly! - We are not against the pope insofar as he represents all the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging, of the See of Peter, but we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist who does not believe in his own infallibility, who practices ecuмenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. We are the ones that are excommunicated while and because we wish to remain Catholic, we wish to stay with the Catholic Pope and with the Catholic Church - that is the difference.

For Mr. Madiran, who otherwise has a good grasp of the situation, to say that we are not the "visible Church" - that we are quitting the "visible Church", which is infallible - all that is just words which do not correspond to reality.

Francisco · « **Reply #9 on:** December 25, 2012, 12:22:55 AM »

No surprise about Fr Laisney. At an Indult Mass in Mumbai about a year ago he was part of the three person choir. The woman who types the Society news sheet in that city was also in this choir which was completed by a N.O. priest

Ambrose · « **Reply #10 on:** December 25, 2012, 07:02:45 AM »

There has been some good analysis of the Fr. Laisney vs. Bp. Williamson ecclesiology debate on the Bellarmine Forums.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1371

Ambrose · « **Reply #11 on:** December 25, 2012, 11:13:40 PM »

It is interesting that folks will give a thumbs down to this post, but fail to show why Mr. Lane's analysis is wrong. It is easy to hide in the shadows.

For those who disagree with John Lane, he accepts new members to the Bellarmine Forums, put forth your objections in the public forum and and allow your ideas to be tested.

bowler · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2012, 10:03:58 AM »

Quote from: Nathan

Here you go:

Various Churches? Fr. Francois Laisney

If you have not read BW's EC 281, you can find it here:

EC 281: Various "Churches"

Thanks for the links. Fr. Laisney is not a clear communicator, I find him excruciating to read.

Is there any person in the Neo-SSPX that can communicate clearly and succinctly in English? I think it is just may be because their positions are indefensible, nevertheless, you would think there would be one good communicator to elucidate the defense of their positions clearly and succinctly in English.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2012, 03:24:21 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Nathan
Here you go:

Various Churches? Fr. Francois Laisney

If you have not read BW's EC 281, you can find it here:

EC 281: Various "Churches"

Thanks for the links. Fr. Laisney is not a clear communicator, I find him excruciating to read.

Is there any person in the Neo-SSPX that can communicate clearly and succinctly in English? I think it is just may be because their positions are indefensible, nevertheless, you would think there would be one good communicator to elucidate the defense of their positions clearly and succinctly in English.

This lack of clear communication in a written essay where he had plenty of time to proofread and check for erros means that he's trying to use tactics of deception. Why is Fr. Laisney trying to make a case that ABL did not try to make?

If the conciliar mass and the Catholic Mass are one and the same are part and parcel of the same Holy Catholic Church yet, for reasons unstated, the conciliarists are all hanging on the apostate ideas, what are we to make of this? Is it all a matter of personal preference - hence, a matter of private judgement?

Doesn't apostasy render one no longer Catholic?

Nathan · « **Reply #14 on:** December 26, 2012, 03:38:48 PM »

Ambrose,

I believe the reason your link has received disapproval is because of Mr. Lane's strong opinions, in particular, his ideas about the hierarchy and the visibility of the Church. I personally do not entirely agree with Mr. Lane's assessment, and as I do not know your thoughts on the matter, I invite you to advance them for discussion.

A blessed Christmas to you!