Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info  (Read 2380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2126
  • Reputation: +1323/-87
  • Gender: Male
Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
« on: April 27, 2018, 08:36:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

    • http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/enigma-variations-readers-devastating.html



    Dr. Chojnowski: Here is a Reader's critique of Bishop Williamson's position in the current "Pope Wars." To the question, Does Bishop Williamson's position avoid the charge of Schism? Mr. Kozin says that it does not, leading to serious implications for those adhering to his Resistance movement. Do the Dominicans of Avrille agree with him? We will assume they do until they say otherwise.

    UPDATE: Interestingly enough, the main "Resistance" website in the US, CathInfo is taking a poll on the "pope question." So far, only 1/3 of posters on the website indicate they subscribe to the "Recognize and Resist" position, while 25% subscribe to some form of "Sedevacantism." A full 21% say they do not know whether Francis is pope, a small 6% subscribe to the "Resignationist" position, and only 3% indicate that they "know with certainty" that Francis is pope and, I suppose, support him as such.


    Enigma Variations
    Part 1

    Two letters recently posted on this blog, one by Bishop Richard Williamson and the other by Fr. Peter R. Scott, effectively demonstrate two radically different attempts to harmonize perennial Catholic teaching with those teachings proposed by the “Conciliar” Church of Vatican II.  It is astounding to realize that these seemingly contradictory approaches originated in the mind of one man, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, but not at all surprising that each of these antithetical approaches has been adopted by current or former members of the Society of St. Pius X.

    Bishop Williamson recently took it upon himself to respond to a letter addressed to the Dominicans of Avrille by a French Catholic layman, identified only as Monsieur MN, who accused the Dominicans of violating the provisions of Pastor Aeternus by disregarding Canon laws and liturgical forms established by men the Order publicly recognizes as true Popes, validly elected to the Papal office.  According to Monsieur MN, these actions were both sinfully disobedient and a hypocritical denial of the Pope’s authority.  Although Monsieur MN’s letter was not posted we may assume that, consistent with those qualities so typical of the French temperament, his criticisms were pointedly, if not bluntly, expressed.  Bishop Williamson correctly recognized that MN’s criticisms challenged not only the position taken by the Dominicans of Avrille on the validity of the Popes of the Conciliar Church but all other Traditional Catholics holding a similar view responded on behalf of the Avrille religious community.

    Bishop Williamson, in his blithe and winsome way, dismisses Monsieur MN’s gravely serious charges with a mere wave of the ecclesiastical hand.  The Bishop’s arguments can be summed up as follows:

    The Pope’s authority doesn’t include the authority to lead me into heresy.

    I recognize the teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Popes and Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Bishops prior to Vatican II is infallible but I reject any teaching of post-Vatican II Popes that contradict previously defined doctrine.  

    In refusing what the Conciliar Popes teach I am not actually refusing…just using my God given abilities to recognize their errors and contradictions to previous doctrine.

    The blatant logical contradiction embedded in the first statement, that a man whom he resolutely maintains is the Vicar of Christ could also be guilty of leading the entire Church into heresy, provides us with a classic example of cognitive dissonance impossible to ignore.  For implicit in this statement is a contradiction in terms so stark that, when expressed clearly, renders the statement completely nonsensical, i.e. a person could be at one and the same time both the Vicar of Christ and a Manifest Heretic actively working for the destruction of souls! 

    There is also a very inconvenient corollary lurking in Bishop Williamson’s confused explanation of his position; if we have a valid Pope, the true Vicar of Christ on earth, then Bishop Williamson must be, by definition, in schism and no longer a member of the Church!  These conclusions cannot be evaded, either the Pope has complete authority over the jurisdiction and government of the Church as defined in Paster Aeternus, or Bishop Williamson is the ultimate judge, able to define the limits of Papal authority.  Bishop Williamson appears to be untroubled by the logical incompatibility of the theological propositions he presents to us in this article, and he attempts to resolve this apparent incompatibility in the much the same manner he has adopted in the past when dealing with similar theological issues…to ignore any apparent contradictions and to dismiss any criticisms as irrelevant. 

    The remainder of Bishop Williamson’s response to Monsieur MN’s objections are simply variations on his initial theme that the Pope may declaim but he decides.  He correctly draws our attention to the undeniable fact that some important pronouncements of the “Conciliar Church” clearly contradict the infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the dogmatic declarations of former Popes.  He appeals to the very same tradition to justify his novel response to these contradictions. However, while the contradictions are themselves undeniable, the Bishop’s deliberate course of action is not condoned by the traditional authority of the institution to which he appeals.  On the contrary, the Church has always condemned those who have the temerity to oppose the decisions of its Popes, laws, and traditions.  The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Pastor Aeternus, is devastatingly clear on this very point and commentaries included in all the manuals of Dogmatic Theology published prior to the debacle of Vatican II have expounded in depth on this very issue; the Bishop’s unorthodox and untenable position finds no support there.

    The ease with which +Williamson dismisses the very authority he claims to recognize, the heresies that are implicit in his statements but refuses to acknowledge, and the enormous contradictions imbedded in his arguments, are positively breathtaking in their audacity and presumption.  The duties and responsibilities of a Bishop in the Catholic Church have been clearly defined in its canons and traditions and primarily consist in the sanctification and edification of souls.  Sober judgment, clarity of thought and expression, a deep knowledge of the Faith, and the ability to lead others along the path to salvation, are indispensable traits a Bishop, most especially today, must possess.  Bishop Williamson’s most recent public actions and remarks do not engender confidence that he possesses these indispensable characteristics in any appreciable way.  Bishop Richard Williamson is, in my opinion, piping a dangerous tune leading his followers along a path away from the perennial teaching of the Church.

    J. E. Kozin
    Logged

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2784
    • Reputation: +2885/-512
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #1 on: April 27, 2018, 11:36:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Kozin:
    Quote
    The blatant logical contradiction embedded in the first statement, that a man whom he (Williamson) resolutely maintains is the Vicar of Christ could also be guilty of leading the entire Church into heresy, provides us with a classic example of cognitive dissonance impossible to ignore.  For implicit in this statement is a contradiction in terms so stark that, when expressed clearly, renders the statement completely nonsensical, i.e. a person could be at one and the same time both the Vicar of Christ and a Manifest Heretic actively working for the destruction of souls! 


     
    Kozin doesn’t break any new ground. He simply reiterates. the question to which there is no answer. It’s been asked and answered over and over again. The question is always the same. The answer assumes various hues, depending upon who is doing the answering. I understand the average sede, who insists that a pope must be Catholic, or, at the very least, must not be seeming to either contradict, contravene, or override catholic tradition and dogma. It makes sense to me. His position, though it may be false, is nevertheless reasonable. I don’t much like it myself that I should be forced to believe that a ‘pig’s ear’ is really a ‘silk purse.’
    I know that Dr. Chojnowski believes that if there is no pope, there is no church. He’s said it a number of times in my presence. His position reminds me somewhat of Robert Faurrison’s with regard to the mythical ‘gas chambers.’ Faurrison, the famous h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, stated flatly that “if there are no holes, there are no gas chambers.” Chojnowski is equally dogmatic.
    Personally, I don’t know. The agnostic position is the safest one at this point.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #2 on: April 27, 2018, 11:51:02 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • Is Chojnowski a sede? It would seem so. They're coming out of the woodwork now. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2784
    • Reputation: +2885/-512
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #3 on: April 27, 2018, 11:56:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Is Chojnowski a sede?

    I have no idea.  He's never said anything to that effect that I know about.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #4 on: April 27, 2018, 11:59:37 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: hollingsworth on April 27, 2018, 11:56:52 AM
    I have no idea.  He's never said anything to that effect that I know about.

    Then he's wimp. He should at least say what his position is, if he's going to write an article like the one in the O.P.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2784
    • Reputation: +2885/-512
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #5 on: April 27, 2018, 01:36:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Then he's (Chojnowski) a wimp. He should at least say what his position is, if he's going to write an article like the one in the O.P.

    Did Dr. C. write the article?  I thought a guy named Kozin did.  And if he has a position, why should be obligated to reveal what it is?  And why should he be called a wimp?  There are probably many wimps on CI and throughout the Trad community
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #6 on: April 27, 2018, 01:44:23 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: hollingsworth on April 27, 2018, 01:36:25 PM
    Did Dr. C. write the article?  I thought a guy named Kozin did.  And if he has a position, why should be obligated to reveal what it is?  And why should he be called a wimp?  There are probably many wimps on CI and throughout the Trad community

    Why should Chojnowski not say what his position is on the matter? He's posting a disparaging piece on his blog about Bp. Williamson, but he doesn't have the decency to even state what his position is. Most of us here on CathInfo have stated our position.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #7 on: April 27, 2018, 02:35:55 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 01:44:23 PM
    Why should Chojnowski not say what his position is on the matter? He's posting a disparaging piece on his blog about Bp. Williamson, but he doesn't have the decency to even state what his position is. Most of us here on CathInfo have stated our position.
    Dr. Chojnowski has never identified himself as a sedevacantist.  Any time I have ever heard him talk or read his articles, he has always referred to the Conciliar claimant to the papacy as "pope".  He's never suggested that the man has lost the office nor that he never attained the office.

    The article in the OP wasn't written by Dr. Chojnowski.

    I've never heard or read Dr. Chojnowski even discuss sedevacantism, so if he's not discussing that issue, why would he bother to say what his position on the matter is?  Come to think of it, I've never heard Meg declare whether or not she is a Satanist.  Is it because she's secretly a Satanist and doesn't want to just come right out and admit it on the forum or is it because she simply doesn't discuss Satanism on CathInfo?

    Meg owes Dr. Chojnowski an apology.
    Logged

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #8 on: April 27, 2018, 04:42:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Dr C has never that I know of publically stated his opinion, but the large amount of Fr Kramer’s that he has posted would lead me to believe that would be his position. 
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #9 on: April 27, 2018, 07:43:55 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mega-fin on April 27, 2018, 04:42:58 PM
    Dr C has never that I know of publically stated his opinion, but the large amount of Fr Kramer’s that he has posted would lead me to believe that would be his position.
    But Fr. Kramer isn't a sedevacantist.
    Logged

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #10 on: April 27, 2018, 08:19:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mr G on April 27, 2018, 08:36:19 AM
    http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/enigma-variations-readers-devastating.html



    Dr. Chojnowski: Here is a Reader's critique of Bishop Williamson's position in the current "Pope Wars." To the question, Does Bishop Williamson's position avoid the charge of Schism? Mr. Kozin says that it does not, leading to serious implications for those adhering to his Resistance movement. Do the Dominicans of Avrille agree with him? We will assume they do until they say otherwise.

    UPDATE: Interestingly enough, the main "Resistance" website in the US, CathInfo is taking a poll on the "pope question." So far, only 1/3 of posters on the website indicate they subscribe to the "Recognize and Resist" position, while 25% subscribe to some form of "Sedevacantism." A full 21% say they do not know whether Francis is pope, a small 6% subscribe to the "Resignationist" position, and only 3% indicate that they "know with certainty" that Francis is pope and, I suppose, support him as such.


    Enigma Variations
    Part 1

    There is also a very inconvenient corollary lurking in Bishop Williamson’s confused explanation of his position; if we have a valid Pope, the true Vicar of Christ on earth, then Bishop Williamson must be, by definition, in schism and no longer a member of the Church!  These conclusions cannot be evaded, either the Pope has complete authority over the jurisdiction and government of the Church as defined in [Pastor] Aeternus, or Bishop Williamson is the ultimate judge, able to define the limits of Papal authority.  Bishop Williamson appears to be untroubled by the logical incompatibility of the theological propositions he presents to us in this article, and he attempts to resolve this apparent incompatibility in the much the same manner he has adopted in the past when dealing with similar theological issues…to ignore any apparent contradictions and to dismiss any criticisms as irrelevant.

    J. E. Kozin
    .
    But Bishop-of-Rome Francis has never referred to himself as "Pope" or "Vicar of Christ" -- it's consistently been others who have imputed these titles to him. The closest thing we have is that he has not refuted their appellations toward him.
    .
    Quote
     Come to think of it, I've never heard Meg declare whether or not she is a Satanist.  Is it because she's secretly a Satanist and doesn't want to just come right out and admit it on the forum or is it because she simply doesn't discuss Satanism on CathInfo?
    .
    Logged
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2655
    • Reputation: +1641/-438
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #11 on: April 27, 2018, 08:43:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: hollingsworth on April 27, 2018, 01:36:25 PM
    Did Dr. C. write the article?  I thought a guy named Kozin did.  And if he has a position, why should be obligated to reveal what it is?  And why should he be called a wimp?  There are probably many wimps on CI and throughout the Trad community
    I agree with Hollingsworth. Lots of wimps and lots of questions. Just keep the Faith and forget the divisiveness. Frank is the pope or not the pope. Who knows? God!!!
    Logged
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11662
    • Reputation: +6989/-498
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #12 on: April 27, 2018, 08:47:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 01:44:23 PM
     Most of us here on CathInfo have stated our position.
    Nonsense. Nobody has an obligation to state his position. I have never stated my position, which is neither here not there.
    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #13 on: April 28, 2018, 12:02:29 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: TKGS on April 27, 2018, 02:35:55 PM

    Meg owes Dr. Chojnowski an apology.

    I don't think so. You may think he's special, but I don't have to think that. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Chojnowski adds to the debate going on at Cath Info
    « Reply #14 on: April 28, 2018, 08:32:04 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Meg on April 28, 2018, 12:02:29 AM
    I don't think so. You may think he's special, but I don't have to think that.
    No.  I don't think he's special.  I just don't think people should call him or others names for no good reason--especially when the person name-calling isn't smart enough to actually read that the opening post wasn't writting by the victim the calumny.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »