From cantate on IA:
Sneaky.
There is no mention here whatsoever of what a Bishop is to do. The advice extends only to the priests and the laity.
Surely to goodness, +ABL went much farther than this man's advice. He consecrated four bishops to keep the hierarchy itself in being, because the hierarchy is not the priests, but the Apostles. +ABL made Apostles for the Church, so that men could still have the Sacraments through the fullness of the priesthood.
+W is himself an effect of going beyond this man's advice, yet would have people think it is good to return to an ideological place one has left in order to mark out the route for the future. Just more absurdity.
This EC is a bunch of hot air.
He who refuses to lead by his words nevertheless holds in absolute abeyance all works of upbuilding by his adamant refusal to relinquish tyrannical control of the priests who who try to continue the Church on Earth. If he really does not want to control the thing with an iron fist, then why not give them a bishop?
And what about the SSPX? Will they ever get around to consecrating more bishops? Why are they sitting around and not meeting the real need for a lot more of them?
If I have learned anything over the past year, it is truly that only God can save His Church and prevent Her from defecting, and most likely by a miracle, because men are corrupt and weak and well nigh useless.
God save us! We perish!
Dear Brother-in-Christ Militia Jesu,
Well said!!
The concluding statement in the quote contained in this latest EC from the brilliant Bishop Williamson is horrendously wrong. "Our" efforts to restore the Catholic status quo ante or anything like it are most absolutely NOT "efficacious" to overcome the present crisis. The vision outlined in this EC by the good Bishop Williamson is in no way adequate to our contemporary world. It may well describe a tenable future for the Catholics of the 1970s, but certainly not since then. Pope John Paul I attempted to realize the vision contained in this EC and, fellow Catholics, please contemplate what happened to him. He was promptly dispatched by our "friends" in the CIA (after just 33 days on the Papal throne that corresponded mystically with the 33 years of Our Lord on earth) and that was the end of that.
In effect, there are no Catholic adults in the vision outlined by the good Bishop Williamson. It is the duty of Catholic laymen to fight the good fight, not to act like drones with nothing better to do than make money for their own selfish comfort. It is the duty of Catholic lay women to fight the good fight for Catholic civilization in our homes and communities. It is the duty of Catholic clergy to obey and be supported by their bishop. But all of this has little to do with any presumption of shining success in this rather dark and fallen world.
What must motivate us as Catholics is what has always motivated us in our great struggles against frequently hopeless odds. Namely, our Roman Catholic Apocalyptic Hope in Our Savior's return and in HIs Second Coming above all embodied in the supernatural Immaculate Heart of Mary. If that is not the daily hope in our hearts that motivates our efforts, then we are very far from being any sort of authentic Traditional Catholics and have then compromised much more with the Protestants than is wise or beneficial for us (or for them).
At present our humble Catholic lot is to be living through the apocalyptic Battle of Armageddon now occurring so dramatically before our eyes in the Middle East and in the Biblical Holy Land. We should therefore place our hope in Christ, dare to be adult Roman Catholics and take heart from the courage and selflessness of our Catholic brethren now valiantly fighting and leading the good fight against our enemies in that crucially central part of the world. This is decidedly not the time to hide our light beneath a basket as, in effect, the good Bishop Williamson recommends.
There has never been a time when Roman Catholics should proclaim our faith and hope in Our Lord so loudly and clearly as in the present. Truly we now have little or nothing of significance to lose and, in our Lord Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, quite literally an entire world to win and conquer. And nothing of consequence prevents us apart from our own selfish cowardice!
As a very modest assist to readers in this endeavor, this writer here adds his own humble translation of a recent and most topical essay by the good Padre Basilio Meramo of Bogota, Columbia and Paris, France:
FROM FIDEIST SEDEVACANTISM TO ANTI-APOCALYPTIC RESTORATIONISM
It is unfortunate that "erudite" persons such as the one writing under the pseudonym of "Friar" Eusebio Lugo (who says he has met me, apparently in Spain, but who does not allow me the pleasure of identifying him), confuses the faithful with his commentaries in which he distorts everything.
At the conclusion of his article of January 20, 2013, very interesting and illustrative concerning the Prophecy of St. Anselm of Sunium on the letter K, he proffers his opinion disqualifying the apocalyptic vision of the current crisis among certain Traditionalist clergy as obsessive and hysterical (something typical of women) and saying that, according to him, they "have recently arrived at a form of Sedevacantism sui generis and are moreover despisers of the Papacy, being influenced by the Marrano Padre Lacunza," "claiming the immanence of the Parousia in a way very similar to Joachim de Fiore, and making them defeatists (read pessimists) who do not want to work for (read believe in) restoration through the intrinsic powers of human effort (human muscle) which is incidentally one of the characteristics of ecuмenist progressivism." It seems my challenger is unaware that the Apocalypse is the prophecy of great and blessed hope.
This accusation clearly points to what I have said on many occasions, though he does not name me, since my Apocalyptic and Millenarian position is also expounded by Padre Castellani, Padre Alcañiz, Padre Rovira, Padre Pesquera, Padre Martín, Monsignor Morrondo and the famous Padre Lacunza, among others.
Thus we have our illustrious and anonymous challenger confusing the Joachimism of the famous Calabrian Abbot Joaquim de Fiore (1135 - 1202) that is permeated by the Kabbalah, as proven by Padre Julio Meinvielle in his book "From the Kabbalah to Progressivism," with the Apocalypse accurately and correctly interpreted by the early Church of the first four centuries.
It would be nothing unusual were our spirited critic to paint Saint Louis Marie de Montfort with the same brush, if he knew that the saint is apocalyptic and millenarian and also mentions three kingdoms: that of the Father, that of the Son and that of the Holy Ghost. Thus in his Fiery Prayer for the Apostles of the Latter Times: "The special reign of God the Father lasted until the Deluge, and was concluded by a deluge of water. A deluge of Blood concluded the reign of Jesus Christ. But Thy reign, Spirit of the Father and of the Son, continues at the present time and will be concluded by a deluge of fire, of love and of justice." But this has nothing to do with the theory of the three kingdoms of Joachim de Fiore condemned by the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) for its Trinitarian errors.
And Saint Louis, as a good Apocalyptic and Millenarian, in the same prayer says concerning the Parousian restoration: "Must not Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven? Must not Thy Kingdom come? Hast Thou not given to some of Thy friends a prophetic glimpse of the future renovation of Thy Church? Are not the Jєωs to be converted to the Truth? Is not this what Thy Church is awaiting? Do not all the Saints in heaven cry out to Thee: Avenge Thyself? Do not all the just on earth say to Thee: Amen. Come, O Lord, for the time is at hand (Apoc. 22:20). Do not all creatures, even the most insensible, moan under the weight of the numberless sins of Babylon and call for Thy coming to reestablish all things? For we know that every creature groaneth (Rom. 8:22)." This is the true Restoration, the one to be held on the Day of the Parousia, when the Lord comes in Glory and Majesty.
On the other hand, "Friar" Eusebio does not distinguish between Patristic or Spiritual Millenialism and Carnal, Crass and Judaizing Millenialism, nor does he distinguish Mixed or Mitigated Millenialism; everything is thrown into the same bag, everything mixed and unabashedly confused, apples together with oranges, whereas the way of the wise is to order and distinguish.
Moreover to say that Padre Manuel Lacunza is a Marrano (Judaizer) is complete petulant nonsense and falsehood that is ignorant of what Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo says in his "History of Spanish Heterodoxies," where it is made clear that Padre Lacunza was orthodox and not a heretic as some ignorantly think (or better do not think) in the present day when they speak without much knowledge or wisdom. On the other hand if we do not situate this crisis, unprecedented in the entire history of the world and Church, and which has never been seen before nor ever shall be, into the context of the Apocalypse that historically began at least 60 years ago with the end of the Diaspora (1947 or 1948 depending on how sees it, with the decree or the realization) and which is named in the Sacred Scriptures as an event at the end of the apocalyptic last days as affirmed in Saint Luke 21:24. And moreover this entire crisis of faith and apostasy of abomination and desolation in the Holy Place (the Church) is apocalyptic, together with the Great Tribulation, which according to Saint Thomas consists in the perversion of Catholic doctrine by a false doctrine with the consequent loss of faith and to such a degree that if the days such as we see at present were not shortened none would be saved, then it is at all costs understandable to expect a "Restoration." Therefore this crisis by its content and extension can be none other than the Great Apocalyptic Crisis, the which requires the intervention of God as a solution.
So that the only promised Universal Restoration for which Creation (the entire Cosmos or universe) groans awaiting their Redemption, as Saint Paul says in Romans 8, 18-25, is what is to occur with the Parousia. This is the only Universal or Cosmic Restoration. To claim otherwise is to distort the Scriptures and corrupt the Word of God with false restorationist hopes aroused by men who dismiss the great Apocalyptic Hope.
This concerns the famous Apocatastasis (ἀποκατάστασις, Restoration) or Palingenesis (πάλινγένεσις, Renovation of Everything, or of All Things) of which Acts 3:21 speaks. All of which is completed in the Parousia and the Glorious Millennium of Christ the King, the blessed hope of Saint Paul, Titus, 2:13, of Saint Peter, 1 Peter 1:13, 2 Peter 3, 11-13 and of Saint John, Apocalypse 21:5.
So that those who do not love the truth and Parousia, as Saint Paul says in Second Timothy, 4:8, not only cannot understand, but in turn make themselves enemies of God, and are sophists: "For yet a little while and a very little while, and he that is to come, will come, and will not delay. But my just man liveth by faith." Hebrews 10, 37-38.
This is the hope of the Parousia (Apocalyptic Hope) so that we shall not be ashamed: "And now, little children, abide in him, that when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be confounded by him at his coming." 1 John 2:28, for as Saint John states elsewhere, this hope that purifies us is the Parousia: "Dearly beloved, we are now the Sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when He shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as He is. And every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as He also is holy." 1 John 3, 2-3.
Thus we have it that he who denies these things is Antichrist, thereby knowing by the same that it is the last hour: "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18.
And: "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son." 1 John 2:22.
To deny or eclipse the Parousia also belongs to the Antichrist, by not confessing Christ and his glorious Parousia "and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist." 1 John 4:3. "And this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith." 1 John 5:4. "For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist." 2 John 1:7. Read well, it does not say he who came (past) but he who shall come (future) and this is the Parousia.
Saint John says Antichrist is he who does not confess that Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2), and he who does not confess that Christ comes in the flesh (2 John 1:7). Thus according to the translation of Monsignor Staubinger of the original Greek, Antichrist is he who denies the First Coming (that has come in the flesh), but equally as much he who denies the Second Coming or Parousia (that comes in the flesh).
Finally, when referring to a "sui generis Sedevacantism and despiser of the Papacy," perhaps upset by the publication of my work: Theological Considerations on the Sede Vacante," our flamboyant challenger seems to know only the visceral, aprioristic, categorical and dogmatic version of Fideist Sedevacantism so that therefore he speaks with some surprise and irritation of a new "sui generis Sedevacantism" which again has no foundation because my work was written is 1993 and sent in 1994 to the General House, Father Schmidberger then being the Superior General; what is new is its diffusion to the general public, but I do not believe that "Friar" Eusebio then had any better understanding of this theme that he at present claims to master as if he were a theologian than he has now.
For example, he is unaware of the position of a Padre Coache or Bishop de Castro Mayer and of the implicit sedevacantism of Archbishop Lefebvre who, according to what Father Aulagnier told me on the occasion of my writing at that time when he left it to be understood that Monsignor Lefebvre was Sedevacantist in his thinking.
By every means the theme soon became a taboo and was even demonized thanks to a skilful and all-encompassing dialectic into which the ones as much as the others then fell, which is to say the Sedevacantists as much as the Anti-Sedevacantists, and with which dialectic a balanced and theological consideration that would raise the theme in a carefully weighed and equanimous manner was blocked, such that light was shed on the topic only in a debate that has been poorly debated and until now presented under false premises, transforming Sedevacantism into a dogma or quasi-dogma of the faith by divinizing the person of the Pope, extending his infallibility beyond every limit and beyond the infallibility strictly and narrowly defined by the Church.
Already in 1926 the Director of the French Seminary in Rome, Father Le Floch, (considered a heretic by the a priori and Fideist Sedevacantists) spoke prophetically warning: "The heresy to come will be the most dangerous of all; it will consist in the exaggeration of respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of infallibility." Just as is happening at present to the extent of deifying the person of the Pope (Papal idolatry or Papolatry).
The question of the Sede Vacante is a theological consideration that weighs the evidence (quoad sapientes, which is to say: by the wise or by those skilled in the matter) as a theological conclusion without categorical, dogmatic and Fideist apriorisms, but instead based on theological principles of the faith according to sound doctrine and drawing conclusions that are verified and confirmed by the facts.
The possibility of error in the Pope (himself alone) is excluded when he speaks ex cathedra, which is to say when exercising his Extraordinary Magisterium, thereby formulating or declaring a truth as revealed through a solemn judgment. To extend infallibility to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (himself alone) is an abuse and overreaching of what is defined (specifically limited) by the Church. Nor should this be confused with the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, since that no longer concerns the Pope alone (unilaterally) but concerns every bishop in moral unanimity and under their head, the Pope.
But for visceral and Fideist dogmatic Sedevacantism this is to despise the Papacy and to almost be, or without the almost, to be a heretic. Such is the case with those who think like "Friar" Eusebio, for whom as the logical consequence of their thinking Saint Alphonso would be a heretic, or at least a despiser of the Papacy, for refuting Albert Pighi or Pighius (1490-1542) who was in the service of the Papacy from 1522, when he was called to
Rome by the only Flemish (Dutch) Pope, Hadrian VI, and placing Pighius at the opposite extreme from but equally in error with Luther and Calvin. The same would have to be said of Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (uncle of the Grand Inquisitor of Spain Tomás de Torquemada), of Melchor Cano, of Domingo Soto (these latter two were theologians emeritus of the Council of Trent), of Bañez and even of Suarez, to name only a few and not to mention the eminent Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine, because they all admitted that a Pope could be schismatic, or heretic or even apostate.
Everyone speaking and thinking like the alias "Friar" Eusebio is unaware of the thought of the Middle Ages and of Popes such as Saint Leo II (682-683), Adrian II (867-872) or Innocent III (1198-1216) and they thereby refute as innovation that which is not and of which they are unaware, to the extent that if there is an innovation in this matter, then the innovation was precisely that of the Flemish Pighius, on whose innovation many base themselves without realizing their innovative error.
It is moreover fitting to recall the case of Saint Vincent Ferrer (1360-1419), who at first favoured Pedro de Luna, the Antipope Benedict XIII, against the legitimate Pope, an error he eventually remedied, but for which error no one either then or later considered him to be a heretic or impious, or a despiser of the Papacy.
The Anti-Apocalypticists and Anti-Millenarians do not realize that they are Millenialists in reverse (or inverted) as is made very sharply apparent by Padre Castellani: "It is the same carnal dream of the Jєωs, who deceived themselves with respect to Christ. They are Millenialists in reverse. They staunchly deny the meta-historical Millennium after the Parousia which is in the Scripture and put forward a Millennium that is not in the Scripture and which is the work of historical forces alone or of an infra-historical solution to History, the same as such impious "progressives" as Condorcet, Auguste Comte and Kant, and hence is equivalent to denying the supernatural intervention of God in History and at base the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures itself." (The Apocalypse of Saint John, Pauline Publishers, Buenos Aires, 1963, p. 367). He concludes by saying: "The Apocalypse is the only contemporary antidote against these 'Pseudo-Prophets'." (Ibidem, p. 367).
Moreover they do not realize that the character of the Religious or Pseudo-Prophetic Antichrist consists in providing the Kingdom in this world, as a Paradise on earth: "And the Beast of the Earth is like the Lamb, 'for signs and wonders,' promising happiness and speaking beautiful words, full of praise. He promises the Kingdom in this world through the efforts of man alone, like the Dragon promised Christ on the Mount of Temptation." (Ibid., p. 260-261). Such is what the Anti-Millenarians want.
And this is precisely the idea that pervades and lies at the heart of every Restorationist, those who seek the triumph of the Church in this world through the efforts of man alone (purely by human lung and muscle) without which they see their priestly vocations and the mission of the Church herself as failed. Ultimately what they seek is in essence the same or something similar to what the Religious or Pseudo-Prophetic Antichrist, the Beast of the Earth, promises and offers. And this is the reason for their thorough Anti-Apocalypticism and Anti-Millenarianism, since they do not tolerate that there is no intra-historic and temporal triumph or restoration of the Church.
Thus everyone opposed to the triumphal and earthly Restorationist idea is qualified as "pessimistic, surrendering, believing everything to be lost, so that there is nothing to be done." Because they do not see beyond their terrestrial and activist vision they do not place their hope in God and in His intervention as the epilogue of history.
Padre Basilio Meramo
Bogotá, June 24, 2013
Topic: Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson 8-24-13 (Read 3733 times)