CONCILIAR POPES – II

June 6, 2015
Number CDXII (412)
 
Conciliar Popes meant well, while causing harm?
God is their judge. We wait on God’s strong arm.

These “Comments” keep coming back to the problem of subjectivism because they hold that today’s Church and world cannot be understood without it. Subjectivism means that rot of the mind whereby the person, or subject, has let his mind be disconnected from reality, or the object, leaving the person free to remake reality according to his own fantasy. Hence the fantasy-world in all its madness surrounding us today, including the fantasy of the Newchurch (Church and world are reconcilable) and the same fantasy of the Newsociety (Tradition and the Newchurch are reconcilable).

To keep one’s mental grip on reality and to keep one’s balance in the Faith, it is essential to keep distinguishing the subjective from the objective. For instance, the Conciliar Popes are gravely mistaken in the Faith, objectively speaking, but subjectively speaking thay have been convinced they were right, and they may well have been at least partly (God knows) well-intentioned. But if I fail to distinguish objective and subjective, then I easily fall into one of two familiar errors. Either I say they are objectively wrong so they must be subjectively wrong, therefore they cannot have been well-intentioned and they must have known what they were doing, so they cannot have been Popes, and I fall into dogmatic sedevacantism. Or I say they are convinced and they are convincing, so they are subjectively and therefore must be objectively right, so I must follow them, and I fall into liberalism (here is how Benedict XVI, for instance, has – objectively – deceived many a good Catholic, whatever were his intentions).

On the contrary if I have a clear faith and can distinguish between objective reality and today’s universal fantasy, then, measuring ultimately Rome by the Faith and not the Faith by Rome, I can see that the Conciliar Popes may have been convinced and they may at least in part – God knows – have meant well, but I will never follow them away from the true Faith and the true Church. On the other hand I will not exclude the possibility of a measure of good intentions on their part, nor will I take upon myself to judge of that measure, but I will wait for the Church to judge, after a hearing, of their pertinacity and heresy.

But today’s churchmen are so universally infected with the fantasy of liberty, equality and the rights of man as opposed to duty, hierarchy and the rights of God, that the prospects of such a hearing taking place any time soon are slim indeed. Therefore in my own mind I may have to leave in suspense the question of these Popes. Such suspense is not comfortable, but I know that God in his own good time will come to the rescue of his Papacy.

Meanwhile the structure of his Church, whereby all authority derives from the Pope downwards, has not changed. Therefore since Pope Francis is condemning Tradition whenever he gets a chance, Tradition can only be struggling to survive. As for Archbishop Lefebvre’s founding and on-going leadership of the Society of St Pius X, the local diocesan bishop’s official approval of its Statutes was of immense importance. That made of the SSPX the emergency lighting of the mainstream Church, and the “Resistance” movement can only be an attempt to repair that emergency lighting of the mainstream Church. The attempt is hindered by both mainstream and emergency electricians? So be it. But somebody has to keep at least a few lights on in the Church. However, against such hindrance from fellow electricians, let nobody expect from the “Resistance” wonders or marvels. Patience. God has everything under control.

Kyrie eleison.

N.B. I should be Confirming this summer: (in France) near Pau June 7, near Vichy June 14; (in Canada) Calgary June 29; and (in the USA) Denver July 1, Nashville July 2, Jacksonville July 5.

Why does it matter what the vatican ii popes' intentions are?   We cant definitively say one way or the other if they are good or bad.  Its pointless to discuss.   They're doing wrong, promoting error and destroying truth.  Am I supposed to feel sorry for them because they MIGHT be good people?  This type of thinking sorta belittles grace and ones conscience.  The pope has more actual grace than me, and I know that communion in the hand is wrong and that dogs aren't going to heaven.  The past few popes haven't been, nor did they like being Catholic.  They disrupted the Church, at best; at worst, they were actively working to destroy her from the inside.  Are we now making excuses and ignoring the global conspiracy?  Did Vatican II and everything since all happen by "accident"?  I hope his Excellency switches to another topic soon.   This is a waste of time and full of faulty logic.

Yes, it used to be "the pope is sick"; now "the pope may mean well". If the office is such that it excuses the worst excesses of the incuмbent, there is little point in having a meaningful succession. No pope is better than this. Indeed, trads have effectively been doing without for half a century and will continue to do so.

The election of conciliar popes by conciliar cardinals is to be honest the affair of the new religion. In no way can this process (an imitation of the past) be intended to preserve the old church and manage her today. They know exactly what they are doing. The bishop is perhaps too old and too afraid to draw the right conclusion; he carries the burden of ABL's apostolate of doubt.

Pax Vobis,

This is a waste of time and full of faulty logic.

Wessex,

....he carries the burden of ABL's apostolate of doubt.

These two thoughts just about sum it up. Oh but the fact that the Bishop is an apostle of sincere and good willed ignorance is strongly at play here, as well.

If you believe in such, then there is no way in which you can limit their application, regardless of facts. It is a proposition which is based upon doubt, and presumption.

The late Fr de Nantes made public accusations of heresy against both Paul VI and John Paul II. Did Archbishop Lefebvre and the then Fr Williamson come out in support of these accusations? If not, then why not?

The Archbishop and his followers followed the maxim of "having their cake and eating it too".  A contradictory and impossible endeavor, which became more so as time went on.
The Archbishop found escape in his release from this earthly life. Bishop Williamson, it seems was made in this mold, and it would seem that it is not possible for him to break free from it.

The proposal that the true Catholic Church is half rotten, and is being legitimately governed by heretics, apostates, and non-Catholics, is a cake that is not palatable to many thinking reasonable men.  Trying to wash it down with ideas of sincerity, ignorance, presumed good will, and being Catholic by desire are not going to change reality.

The late Fr de Nantes made public accusations of heresy against both Paul VI and John Paul II. Did Archbishop Lefebvre and the then Fr Williamson come out in support of these accusations? If not, then why not?

I don't have any idea what the Archbishop or Father Williamson said then as I had no idea that there even was an SSPX at that time.  However, many in the SSPX since have made it quite clear that John Paul 2 (I don't think I've ever heard them say much about Paul 6 as he was already an historical figure when I learned about the SSPX) is a heretic.

But, to the SSPX it doesn't matter.  John Paul 2 could be both a heretic and a pope.  The same could be said about Ratzinger and Bergoglio.  

Quote from: AJNC

The late Fr de Nantes made public accusations of heresy against both Paul VI and John Paul II. Did Archbishop Lefebvre and the then Fr Williamson come out in support of these accusations? If not, then why not?

I don't have any idea what the Archbishop or Father Williamson said then as I had no idea that there even was an SSPX at that time.  However, many in the SSPX since have made it quite clear that John Paul 2 (I don't think I've ever heard them say much about Paul 6 as he was already an historical figure when I learned about the SSPX) is a heretic.

But, to the SSPX it doesn't matter.  John Paul 2 could be both a heretic and a pope.  The same could be said about Ratzinger and Bergoglio.  

The arguments to consider Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio true popes as presented by Bp. Williamson are the same arguments presented by the neo-SSPX.