Author Topic: CONCILIAR POPES IV  (Read 1930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adolphus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 467
  • Reputation: +467/-6
  • Gender: Male
CONCILIAR POPES IV
« on: July 11, 2015, 04:29:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CONCILIAR POPES – IV

    July 11, 2015
    Number CDXVII (417)
     
    Of “mind-rot” did the Archbishop never speak?
    With other words he too said minds are weak.


    Many readers of these “Comments” presently find they are treating too often of sedevacantism, or of the position that the See of Rome is vacant, i.e. no Pope since Vatican II has been a real Pope. Now if a Catholic needs to hold that opinion in order not to lose his Catholic faith, let him hold it, because his faith is paramount (Heb. XI, 6). But the opinion in itself is dangerous precisely because it can be the beginning of a slide towards losing the faith, and that is why these “Comments” are so insistent on discouraging sedevacantism. From an opinion it becomes all too easily a dogma, then the super-dogma and the measure of whether one is Catholic or not, from where it can slide into complete disbelief in the structural Church and into “home-aloning,” even to loss of one’s Catholic faith. Consider what Archbishop Lefebvre said (slightly adapted, and with emphasis added) in late 1979 in a conference to Écône seminarians:—

    “We must be prudent. It is obvious that if Pope Paul VI was not Pope, then the Cardinals he appointed are not Cardinals, so they cannot have elected John-Paul I, and they cannot have validly elected John-Paul II, that much is clear. I don’t think one can say such things. I think these are exaggerations, arguing in a manner too absolute and too rapid. I think the reality is more complex.

    “I think that those who argue like this are in a certain way forgetting moral theology and ethics. They are being too speculative. Moral theology and ethics teach us to reason and to judge of people and their acts according to a whole context of circumstances which we must take into account: “Who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when” – all seven circumstances must be examined if we are to judge of the morality of an act. So we cannot remain in the pure stratosphere, one might say, in the realm of pure dogmatic theology, by pronouncing, for instance, that such an act is heretical, therefore whoever did it is a heretic. But was this person aware of what he was doing, did he do it truly by himself, was he not deceived or forced into doing it?

    “I think that here is how to solve the grave problems posed by John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul I. The latter is quoted in the newspapers as having said that he had thought at first that the Council’s new definition of religious liberty was unacceptable because the Church taught the opposite, but on further study of the Council document and all its contents he had realized that the Church was mistaken beforehand. Now I have no idea what were John-Paul I’s exact words, but to say that the Church could be mistaken on such a matter as religious liberty just boggles the mind! However, I put it down to liberal minds. Liberalism is like that. Liberalism both makes a statement and then contradicts it, and if one shows that what it said is not true, then it comes up with another ambiguous formula with a double meaning. The liberal mind is continually floating around, with expressions that are not clear, with things that can be taken two ways . . . . How many things there are like that in the Council, expressions equivocal and unclear, altogether typical of minds adrift, liberal minds . . . . As I see it, I think that the fact that the Pope is a liberal is enough to explain the situation in which we find ourselves.”

    Bravo, your Excellency! Is not the Archbishop saying here exactly what these “Comments” have so often been saying? And the reason why these “Comments” have been saying it so often is because they see here the key to avoiding liberalism without having to resort to sedevacantism.

    Kyrie eleison.

    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #1 on: July 11, 2015, 08:23:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :facepalm: Once again... Mind Rot!


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #2 on: July 11, 2015, 09:03:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :shocked:.......... You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone! .....................

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #3 on: July 12, 2015, 03:39:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think Bp. Fellay said the Society was a church of the imagination. That is why he can only see an end to this world of dreams by returning fully to the mainstream. In my youth during the early years of the Society I was aware of a new culture in the making which attracted ambitious young priests and excited young ladies surrounding the archbishop as some kind of omniscient guru. Where are they all now, I wonder. Post-ABL, unless the culture was going to be just a memorial to the life and times of his latter years, it had to find some escape route and the Society collectively is finding the easy way out.

    The more I think of it, perpetuating this mythology of the archbishop has itself become a distraction for those who are afraid of harsh reality. How can one base a movement on his terrible ambiguities and uncertainties which the bishop keeps on doing? Is not an atmosphere of doubt intolerable and unhealthy? Of course, further mainstream revolutionary evolution will make this wait and see approach harder and harder to sustain and yet there will always be those motivated by pure imagination.

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2477
    • Reputation: +2669/-331
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #4 on: July 12, 2015, 04:33:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wessex:
    Quote
    The more I think of it, perpetuating this mythology of the archbishop has itself become a distraction for those who are afraid of harsh reality. How can one base a movement on his terrible ambiguities and uncertainties which the bishop keeps on doing? Is not an atmosphere of doubt intolerable and unhealthy? Of course, further mainstream revolutionary evolution will make this wait and see approach harder and harder to sustain and yet there will always be those motivated by pure imagination.


    Wessex got one thumbs up on this post, which means that at least one cathinfo denizen thought he understood what the former was saying.  I do not really.  ABL is oft criticized for one thing and another, more so now as his passing becomes but a faint speck in the rear view mirror.  But whoa! What's this about ABL's "terrible ambiguities and uncertainties?"

      The only viable, and semi-enduring traditional Catholic movement in the world  has been the SSPX. ( Of course, Fellay & Co. are doing their best to screw it all up, and have largely succeeded.)  The only organization on behalf of Catholic restoration, with something of universal name recognition, is SSPX.  The only Catholic clergyman of high rank during and after the advent of the conciliar era, with whom many of us are acquainted, and who openly opposed New Church, was Abp. Lefebvre.  

    Are we going to be forced by the likes of Wessex to concede that this, (I would say), great man must now be looked upon, in memoriam, in Wessex's view anyway, as a mass of ambiguities and uncertainties?  a largely mythological character whom hard reality exposes? A figment of our "pure imagination?"

    My, my!  I look at these comments as a thinly veiled assault upon the only bishop who, IMO, seems to understand what the Archbishop was about, and is trying to further and preserve his legacy.  I get a  little nervous every time I read something from Wessex in the vein of: "The more I think of it...."  Uh-oh! :shocked:


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5152
    • Reputation: +2965/-1348
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #5 on: July 12, 2015, 05:01:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wessex, I just don't see how anyone who considers himself a traditionalist, can be against ABL (or +Williamson).  Name one concrete thing that he did that was wrong and anti-catholic.

    If you can't, then why are you cutting him down?  Cause he's not "perfect", according to your definition?

    We live in a world where 99% of priests and bishops (not to mention the pope) who are totally, unambiguously lax catholics (or worse) and we "traditionalists", who are supposed to be "the best" spend all our time debating about how those catholics ON OUR SIDE are wrong.  It's ridiculous.  

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2477
    • Reputation: +2669/-331
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #6 on: July 12, 2015, 07:12:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think what Wessex is trying to tell anyone who will listen the following, in essence:  The whole Lefebvrian experiment was a bust.  It  didn't work.  It was a cultic myth built up around the person of a largely mythical figure, who was not really what many people thought him to be.  Now we are forced  to deal with his grand inconsistencies and contradictions, and are having a difficult time doing so.  
    ABL  did not lay out for us a clear way to move forward, because he himself was never clear about how to go about it.  And the bishop, who many of us feel best represents the Lefebvrian ideal, projects his mentor's uncertainty, as well.  I think that's Wessex in a nutshell. :thinking:

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3717/-290
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #7 on: July 12, 2015, 08:12:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  Our Wessex has a much longer time frame of reference of association and observation of the Society and the Archbishop than most who post on this forum and is speaking from his experience as such.  
    He had seen the promise and potential that the Society held early on.  Of these, there were some which succeeded, and others which did not materialize.

    I do not believe that he has any intention to tear down anyone.  He is simply observing and commenting upon strategic points and attitudes which failed to accomplish what they might have, and beyond that, the Society is in the state that it is today, because of these structural deficiencies which have always been a part of its policies. It is not a sin to say so.

    The Archbishop was a Holy and a humble Catholic. What more can or needs to be said about him?  

    And all of this continual handwringing about sedevacantists and such, ends up being a distraction from the objective truth about the revolutionary heretics and wickedness in Rome and in the dioceses.







    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2477
    • Reputation: +2669/-331
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #8 on: July 13, 2015, 10:09:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • J Paul:  
    Quote
    The Archbishop was a Holy and a humble Catholic. What more can or needs to be said about him?


    Well, I think Wessex said a great deal more about him.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5152
    • Reputation: +2965/-1348
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #9 on: July 13, 2015, 07:41:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I think the larger problem (that we all face, because we're all traditionalists) is that we are not the Church.  +ABL wasn't the church.  Neither is the sspx (no matter how much they want to be).  No group is.  So, the problems this causes in not realizing this fact is that expectations are set which no priest, bishop or group can live up to.

    We have to remember that we are all in our own boats, sailing along the sea, with the Ark in the distance, too damaged for us to "latch onto" or "climb aboard".  And no matter how hard we plan, or paddle, or prepare, our little vessels will take on water from time to time, and big waves will come along that will push us around and cause us trouble.  All simply because we are not the Ark, we aren't attached to Her (for the time being) and we'll never be the Ark, even if we all attached all of our boats together.

    Now, it would certainly help matters if we would all remember this and humble ourselves and not blame this boat or that boat for our problems, and if we could all "get along" but, because of human nature, this probably won't happen until we're forced to (i.e. persecutions).  Until then, and  until the Ark is fixed by God, we're at the mercy of "the sea" (i.e. God) and as long we keep paddling (ie praying), we'll be fine.  

    But trying to play the "blame game' on what bishop should do this or that, or what group can "save" the Church is missing the point.  After honoring God (which we've done by protecting the Mass and the Faith), our job is to be charitable to each other, not save the Church.  Seems to me that God gives us waves to "keep us busy" because, otherwise, we'd continually murmur or cause MORE divisions (than already exist) just like the jews caused a whole bunch of problems when they were wondering in the desert.

    If we would keep the Mass/Faith the priority, instead of all the arguing, criticizing and fighting, maybe God would bless us with calmer seas?

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5765
    • Reputation: +3155/-147
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #10 on: July 13, 2015, 07:58:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Pax Vobis
    All simply because we are not the Ark, we aren't attached to Her (for the time being) and we'll never be the Ark, even if we all attached all of our boats together.

    If we are not the Ark and are not attached to her then it means we will lose our souls.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23422
    • Reputation: +20553/-329
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #11 on: July 13, 2015, 09:54:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    I think Bp. Fellay said the Society was a church of the imagination. That is why he can only see an end to this world of dreams by returning fully to the mainstream. In my youth during the early years of the Society I was aware of a new culture in the making which attracted ambitious young priests and excited young ladies surrounding the archbishop as some kind of omniscient guru. Where are they all now, I wonder. Post-ABL, unless the culture was going to be just a memorial to the life and times of his latter years, it had to find some escape route and the Society collectively is finding the easy way out.

    The more I think of it, perpetuating this mythology of the archbishop has itself become a distraction for those who are afraid of harsh reality. How can one base a movement on his terrible ambiguities and uncertainties which the bishop keeps on doing? Is not an atmosphere of doubt intolerable and unhealthy? Of course, further mainstream revolutionary evolution will make this wait and see approach harder and harder to sustain and yet there will always be those motivated by pure imagination.


    1. It's easier to curse the darkness than to light a candle. You're proof of that.

    2. Ok, so you're an old guy. So is Bishop Williamson. He's been philosophizing as long as you have, and I'll put his "big picture" up against yours any day, thank you very much.

    3. That having been said, there's nothing wrong with philosophizing. Just keep it Catholic, and remember that I'm an imperfect human being myself (part Choleric), and I admire Bishop Williamson.

    4. You might be right at the same time Bishop Williamson is right. That is to say, there might NOT BE a "solution" to this crisis. My opinion is that Archbishop Lefebvre did close to 100% of what a human being could have done, given the circumstances. You can't force God to end the Crisis.

    5. If you disagree with #4, I'd love to hear your "master plan" that would solve the crisis by human power -- a crisis that God allowed to happen for His own mysterious purposes.

    P.S. Don't be like the so-called "hipsters", or those of the young Millennial generation who are mostly CONSUMERS of other peoples' creativity (music, books, movies, video games) and can be quite harsh critics -- even though they won't lift a finger to try their own hand at creating something.  They sit back on their butts and criticize anything and everything, while they themselves produce nothing.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23422
    • Reputation: +20553/-329
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #12 on: July 13, 2015, 09:59:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    Quote from: Pax Vobis
    All simply because we are not the Ark, we aren't attached to Her (for the time being) and we'll never be the Ark, even if we all attached all of our boats together.

    If we are not the Ark and are not attached to her then it means we will lose our souls.


    It depends on how you define the metaphor.

    Usually the metaphor is "spiritual death" = "drowning".  So a lifeboat from the Barque of Peter (like the SSPX) helps souls survive until the boat can be repaired, rebuilt, etc.

    I think he's on to something though. A large ship is more stable, you are less likely to get motion sick or tossed around in a storm, or more likely to SURVIVE big storms, etc. A loose network of independent lifeboats CANNOT replace the original boat in many ways, just like a loose network of independent (and faithful) chapels can't replace the Catholic Church in toto.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2477
    • Reputation: +2669/-331
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #13 on: July 13, 2015, 10:59:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We're being drowned in metaphors.  :furtive:

    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 997
    • Reputation: +562/-42
    • Gender: Male
    CONCILIAR POPES IV
    « Reply #14 on: July 14, 2015, 03:29:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: hollingsworth
    We're being drowned in metaphors.  :furtive:


    In 1964 PaulVI-Montini visited Bombay for the International Eucharistic Congress. Posted were plastered all over the town I was living in at that time: We dont want Pop in India.

    Put up by Sedes who didnt believe in the Bad Dad Doctrine?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16