Bishop Williamson might have deviated from the usage of the Archbishop in clearly distinguishing between the "visible Church" and the "official Church," however, it's apparent Bishop Williamson is in substantial agreement with the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and that those defending Father Laisney's so-called "critique" simply don't accept the position of the Archbishop. (as demonstrated by the poster who said the Archbishop's talk of the "four marks" was just the "rhetoric of the moment")

Now Father Laisney says:

To separate within the visible Church, a Conciliar part, rotten, which “is not the Catholic Church”, and a Catholic part which would only comprise that “which is one, holy, universal and apostolic”, that takes away from the Catholic Church her structure (indeed the author does not hesitate to write: “the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”), the part that would remain Catholic would then be deprived of the structure which Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church! It would no longer be recognizable as the Church of Christ. Such affirmations are therefore very dangerous to the Faith.

Yet what does the Archbishop say?

I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (this is not the visible Church, but the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are?
Clearly we are who preserve the Unity of the faith, which disappeared from the official Church.
One bishop believes in this, the other not, faith is different, their catechisms contain abominable heresies. Where is the unity of the faith in Rome?
Where is the unity of faith in the world? It is in us, we who preserve it.
The unity of the faith held in the whole world is the Catholicity. Now this unity of faith around the world no longer exists, practically, there is no more Catholicity.
There will soon be as many Catholic churches as bishops and dioceses. Everyone has their way of seeing, thinking, preaching, making his catechism. There is no catholicity anymore.
Where is the Apostolicity? They broke with the past. They do not want to know any more of the past before Vatican II.
See the Pope's Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei adflicta of 1988] that condemns us: "the living Tradition, it is Vatican II". It is not necessary to refer to before Vatican II which means nothing. The Church carries the Tradition with her from century to century. What happened, happened, it disappeared. The whole Tradition is in the Church of today. Which is this tradition? What it is linked to? How is it linked with the past?
It is what allows them to say the opposite of what was said before, intending, at the same time, to keep Tradition by themselves.
This is what the Pope [John Paul II] asks us: “to submit to the living tradition.” We would have a “wrong” concept of tradition, because for them, Tradition is living and therefore evolutionary.
But this is a modernist error: the holy Pope Pius X in his encyclical "Pascendi" condemns these terms of "living tradition”, “living Church", "living faith", etc.., In the sense that the modernists understand it, that is, of  the evolution that depends on historical circuмstances. The truth of Revelation, the explanation of revelation, depends on historical circuмstances.
Apostolicity: we are united to the Apostles by the authority. My priesthood comes from the Apostles; your priesthood will come from the Apostles. We are the children of those who gave us the Episcopate. My episcopate descends from the saint Pope Pius V and for him; we go back to the Apostles. As for the apostolic faith, we believe the same faith as the Apostles. We do not change anything and we do not want to change anything.
Then the Holiness. We are not going to do compliments or praises to us.  If we don’t want to consider ourselves, let’s consider the others and let’s consider the fruits of our apostolate, the fruits of the vocations, of our religious and the fruits of Catholic families. The good and holy Catholic families germinate thanks to your apostolate. It is a fact, nobody denies it. Even progressive visitors of Rome stated the good quality of our work. When Mgr Perl said the sisters of Saint Pré and Fanjeaux that in bases like this it will be necessary to reconstruct the Church, it is not, regardless, a small compliment.
All this shows that we are the one who have the features of the Church visible.
If there is still a visibility of the Church today is thanks to you. These signs are not already in the other.
There is no longer in them the unity of the faith, now it is the faith which is the basis of all visibility of the Church.
Catholicity is the [mark of the] faith the one in space.
Apostolicity is the [mark of the] faith the one in time.
Holiness is the fruit of faith, as embodied in the soul by the grace of God, by the grace of the Sacraments.
It is completely false to consider us as if we were not part of the visible Church. That's incredible!

This is dismissed by the +Fellay supporter as the Archbishop's "rhetoric of the moment" - that is to say - these people reject the Archbishop's position.

There is a visible separation between the corrupt parts of the "official Church" and the Catholic Church.  There is no doubt about that.  For Father Laisney to say that it is Donatism or Catharism to separate from those who clearly deny the Catholic Faith (as the modernist hierarchy does) is patent nonsense - it is certainly contrary to the position of the Archbishop.  To say the "official Church" largely does not have the marks of the Catholic Church - that for the most part it is not Catholic - THAT IS PRACTICALLY WHAT THE ARCHBISHOP SAID - IT IS DECEIT TO THEN CLAIM THAT BISHOP WILLIAMSON'S ECCLESIOLOGY IS CONTRARY TO IT - TYPICAL DECEIT OF THOSE WHO SEEK UNION WITH MODERNIST ROME.  

The Archbishop clearly states that the SSPX has no need to be in communion with the "official Church" to belong fully to the visible Church - indeed, to be fully in Communion whereas the "official Church" is largely out of Communion.  That is what the Archbishop said.

The Church is not a horribly disfigured, infected individual.  That is not of the nature of the Church.  Such cannot be the True Church.  The True Church must give sound doctrine.  So it is a completely invalid analogy to speak of the "wheat and the tares" when one is discussing the widespread heresy of the "official Church" - and yes - the Archbishop does call it heresy.  For that reason he says the "offical Church" is for the most part lacking the four marks.

It is very evident that Bishop Williamson's position is practically the same as the Archbishop, except for some variations in terminology.  It stands to reason it would be the same, as the Archbishop chose Bishop Williamson to consecrate.  

It is very telling that those saying that Bishop Williamson is really a sedevacantist and those who jeer Father Laisney "crushed" his EC comments- hooting like a crowd of Rostandian devotees in Post Falls or St. Mary's - are the same people who are 1) brushing aside what the Archbishop said about the Four Marks - essentially criticizing Bishop Williamson for saying things very similar to the Archbishop 2) flagrantly MISREPRESENTING THE POSITION OF THE ARCHBISHOP to be in sharp contradiction to that of Bishop Williamson.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/st-pius-x-fathers-pfeiffer-and-chazal-apostles-of-jesus-and-mary/father-juan-carlos-ortiz-the-new-hermeneutics-of-bishop-fellay-has-the-society-c/318457548258204

Quote from: Telesphorus

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.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

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?

Fr. Laisney is saying the exact opposite of what +Williamson is saying.

Furthermore, there is no straw man in Fr. Laisney's rebuttal.  He may be giving a more coherent account of +W's position that HE himself does (the latter is no theologian), but he does not misrepresent +W's position.

+Williamson is saying that the true Catholic Church (that which possesses the four marks or notes) is a part of the visible Church.  Fr. L is saying what the Church has always taught: that the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church and the visible Church are one and the same thing, containing both wheat and cockle; and it is that Church as a whole, and not some "pure" part of it that possesses the four marks.  He sets that all out quite clearly in his rebuttal of +W.

As for Telephorus's alleged killer quote about the visible Church, what Abp. Lefebvre was opposing there was the argument that Rome must be obeyed even when what it required was at odds with the good of the Church, because it was the visible Church.  Saying that the SSPX had the four marks was rhetoric of the moment, not theology.  The Abp. was not saying that the SSPX and its faithful and allies were the real Church (+W's sound part of the apple) and modernist-tainted Rome something else (the rotten part of the apple).  If that were true, it would make no sense for ABL to seek regularization with Rome, as he did for years, and was prepared to do after 1988 if and when Rome was willing to do so.

It is interesting that as noted further down this string, the SVist Bellarmine Forum seems to be defending +W.  They must recognize the same thing that Fr. Laisney and +W's other non-SVist critics see: that the implication of Bishop Williamson's position is SVism.  It is also interesting that Fr. Cekada, another and more learned SVist who has been posted on IA lately, pays +W no attention at all.  My guess is that Fr. C has concluded that there is nothing of interest in +W's ecclesiology.  Furthermore, if that's what Fr. C thinks, he's right.  It is just a not very carefully worked-out rationalization of +W's rejection of dealings with Rome -- and with Bishop Fellay.

A common feature of heretics is that they don't have to do much to effect
great damage, and their little efforts can leave the defenders of the Faith
with a lot of work to do to repair the damage.

Quote

As for Telephorus's alleged killer quote about the visible Church, what Abp. Lefebvre was opposing there was the argument that Rome must be obeyed even when what it required was at odds with the good of the Church, because it was the visible Church.  Saying that the SSPX had the four marks was rhetoric of the moment, not theology.

It's a real quote, and it is a killer.  We see the proof that those who support +Fellay simply reject the position of the Archbishop, dismiss it and claim it's not theology.

Then you turn around and say Bishop Williamson is actually a sedevacantist - for holding of course to what the Archbishop believed.  What it comes back to, again and again, is the betrayal of the Archbishop by the liberals.

Archbishop Lefebvre said the Conciliar Church is not Catholic.  That is the same was what Bishop Williamson is saying.  Are the New Rites of the Sacraments Catholic?  Is modernism Catholic?  Are those who knowingly adhere to the rejection of the true rites and the true theology Catholics?

No they are not.  As Archbishop Lefebvre said, it is "childish" for these liberalizers, compromisers, to speak as pharisees of the "visible Church" to condemn those who adhere to Catholicism.

And that is what the neo-SSPX does.  

If Bishop Fellay no longer holds to the position of the Archbishop then he needs to say so and stop pretending to be an heir to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” -Abp. Lefebvre

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

Quote from: Father Laisney

To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality, it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

Today’s Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.

If Father Laisney doesn't like the apple analogy, I don't blame him, I don't like it either, however, the Archbishop clearly said the conciliar Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.  

It's clear that Bishop Williamson's analogy is closer to the Archbishop's description than Father Laisney's

Quote from: Father Laisney

At the root of this doctrinal error, there is the ignorance of the great principle of St. Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the wicked does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with their wickedness. Such an error leads to a “Catharist” notion of the Church, a Church of the pure, not infected by the Conciliar rot: such notion is simply not Catholic.

Here we see proof that Father Laisney is peddling trash, and he knows it's trash.

This is not a matter of Communion with those who are merely wicked, but rather with those who profess errors, errors that are in fundamental opposition to the Catholic Faith.  To do so is to practice religious indifferentism.  Father Laisney knows very well his comparisons are strained and invalid.  They don't at all apply to the question of doctrinal errors.

Quote from: Francisco

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

So we see that Father Laisney really DOES NOT hold to the position of the Archbishop, in words or deeds, but he knows how to spin fallacies and deceit for his master, the master deceiver +Fellay.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.

When I saw this one I thought, wait, what part is he copying here?  
Then when I realized it was all his, I had to take notice.  

Parsing Archbishop Lefebvre - the extent to which "today's Church" is the true Church depends on it being in continuation with - holding the same teachings as the true Church has always held - and of one body with - in Communion with those holding the same teachings.

So to say the Conciliar Church is not Catholic is to say its leaders do not teach the Catholic Faith, and are not truly joined to the Catholic Church. (except perhaps in some formal or "supplied" way)

Certain neotrads on Ignis Ardens, have been saying that the "conciliar Church" is a small group (!) a small set of infiltrators.  They're saying the FSSP is preserving the Faith inside the Church - as though the SSPX is outside of it.

The neo-SSPX liberals are saying, when Archbishop Lefebvre speaks of "apostasy" and "leaving the Church" and a "schismatic council" - he doesn't really mean it except in some vague, indeterminate way.  That is simply incredible.  They dismiss his remark about the SSPX having the four marks as "the rhetoric of the moment."    

They really are accepting the objections against the Archbishop about "the visible Church" - (that he called childish) and are rejecting his explanation, dismissing it .  They are speaking of the old position of the society as being "practical sedevacantism" - because they call those who hold to the principle of doctrinal agreement being essential to practical agreement "practical sedevacantists."

Of course, the Archbishop also allowed sedevacantism as a possibility - while neotrads have tried to turn the word into some sort of curse.  What is the truth?  

That the neotrads fundamantally reject the Archbishop's outlook.  They represent the neo-modernist "official Church" as truly being moving towards Tradition.  They are hiding the truth - which is that they are rejecting the Archbishop's views and believe they must enter the "conciliar Church" in order to be fully Catholic.

What is the reality?  The reality is that they are now making false ecuмenist statements in favor [of] Judaism.  That is why we hear of "elder brothers" - that is why Hillel is placed between Isaiah and John the Baptist, that is why Catholics are told to take encouragement from the Jєωιѕн feast of Hanukkah and shown a little Jєωιѕн boy lighting a menorah - advertising Judaism as though it were a legitimate religion!  This is why we hear overt rejection of Catholic doctrine from the pro-Fellay neotrads on Ignis Ardens forum.  That is why someone there had the gall to claim that the SSPX never said Nostra Aetate was against Catholic Tradition!

The SSPX leadership of Father Pflueger and the "unimpeachable Catholic" really bears no true relation anymore to that of Archbishop Lefebvre.  The SSPX is led by a "master deceiver" - and they are trying to deceive Catholics as to what Archbishop Lefebvre taught.  The reality is they never speak as he did anymore, and they silence and insult and expel those who do.

And the cultists heap praise on them, stupidly talking about how the SSPX hacks "crushed" their opposition (while at the same time using all manner of threats against owners and moderators of forums, threatening to disclose names, etc)

The essential aspect of the +Fellay cult is the deceitfulness of its members.  It is their way of life.

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas

It would definitely help if you actually knew what Archbishop Lefebvre meant by those words.

 

Here we have an example of how accordistas always claim that Archbishop Lefebvre is being "quoted out of context" by those who support the resistance.

There is no other way to interpret these very clear and specific quotes from the Archbishop.

Well, they put ABL in good company, don't they? They claim +Fellay was
quoted out of context in his CNS interview, too.  

Maybe that's just their prepackaged knee-jerk reaction they use whenever
they don't like something, kind of like the Jews yelling "anti-Semitism!"
when all that means is, it's something the Jews don't like.

The ecclesiology of the crisis is a difficult subject.

Father Laisney's "critique" depends on trying to create
the impression that what Bishop Williamson has stated
is not substantially the same as what the Archbishop stated.


Does anyone here really believe that the man the Archbishop chose to consecrate doesn't know what the Archbishop said about ecclesiology?

The reality is that Father Laisney is trying to deceive people about what the Archbishop taught.  It is the same sort of deception that calls those who hold to the old SSPX position "practical sedevacantists."  

One could predict ahead of time, that eventually the liberals in the SSPX would call those who held to the Archbishop's position "sedevacantists" - it's how they operate - as deceivers.  To pretend the Vatican II Church - people who have been destroying the Church, are turning to Tradition to save it?  This is deception.

We know these people have liberal tendencies.  We know they promote liberalism in the social life of the chapel.  We know which way they are going.

And so they try to deceive people, misrepresent the truth about the Archbishop, and the people who have absorbed the cult mentality follow them, even as they betray the very reason for existence of the SSPX.

I have written a response to Fr. Laisney's absurd rebuttal:

http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/the-visible-church/