“REBELLIOUS, DIVISIVE”

The seventh chapter of the Gospel of St John has a special lesson for today: who are the real rebels against authority, and who are the merely apparent rebels ? Who appears to be dividing the people of God, and who is really dividing them ? Things are not always what they appear. It is necessary always to “Judge not according to the appearances, but judge just judgment” (Jn. VII, 24).

John VII is close to the end of Our Lord’s life on earth. The Jєωs are seeking to kill Jesus (verse 1), but Our Lord nevertheless goes up to Jerusalem and teaches in the Temple (14). The crowd is already divided (12), and so the effect of his teaching is that some people (40) recognize in him the prophet (cf. Deut.XVIII, 15-19), while others (41, 42) refuse him that recognition because he is from Galilee. So there is division and dissension. Now division as such is blameworthy, so who is to blame ? Certainly not Our Lord, who is merely preaching the doctrine of his Father in Heaven (16-17). Nor can that part of the crowd be blamed which accepted the divine teaching. Clearly the blame for the dissension lies with the Temple authorities and that part of the crowd that was refusing the Truth.

Similarly in the 1970’s and 1980’s Archbishop Lefebvre divided Catholics by teaching and practising the truth of Catholic Tradition, but what Catholic that now boasts of being Traditional blames him for that division ? Clearly the blame for the division of the Church lay neither with the Archbishop nor with those who followed him, but mainly with those Church authorities who were twisting the true religion, like the Temple authorities in Our Lord’s own day. Again and again the Archbishop pleaded with them to “judge just judgment” by confronting the central problem created by their Conciliar adultery with the modern world. To this day they refuse that confrontation. Again and again their only answer has been, “Obedience !”, “Unity !”. Does not their lack of arguments as to the basic questions of truth suggest it is they who are the true rebels and dividers of the Church ?

Yet dissension as such is not a good thing, and both Our Lord and Archbishop Lefebvre knew ahead that dissension would follow on their teaching. Why then did they still go ahead ? Because souls can be saved with dissension (cf. Lk.XII, 51-53), but they cannot be saved without Truth. If the religious authorities are misleading the people - and the Devil works especially hard on them because of their power to lead many other souls astray - then the Truth must be told to bring people back on the path to Heaven, even if dissension will be the result. In this respect Truth is above authority or unity.

And where is that truth in 2012 ? Vatican II was a disaster for the Church - true or false ? The Church authorities who brought about Assisi III and John-Paul II’s “beatification” are clinging to Vatican II - true or false ? And so if the Society of Pius X puts itself under those same authorities, they will use all their prestige, and the power over the SSPX that it will have given them, to dissolve its resistance to Vatican II - true or false ? So the SSPX runs a grave risk of losing steadily whatever will it still has to resist that prestige and power - true or false ? As Romans say, “Rome can wait” !

Then in the SSPX today, if one “judges not according to the appearance but just judgment”, who is it that is being truly “divisive”? Who are the real “rebels against authority” ? Those who criticize such a risk of blending Catholic Truth with Conciliar error, or those who are promoting it ?

Kyrie eleison.

© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

Perfectly stated by +Williamson, as usual.  Deo gratias.

 

Mega dittos magdalena!

Look at the rep you can harvest being the first one to post the [Eleison] comments.

 :farmer:

And after all that hard work, Matthew can come in and change the global settings
to make you rep go bye-bye!  


I was watching for it to come in Sat. morning. But I had to go out for a while. Upon
my return, I saw it had come in my e-mail at 2:05 pm and this thread was
started at 2:34. A few weeks ago, someone posted the EC only 3 minutes after it
had arrived in my e-mail. I'm glad to see so many members are watching for the
current EC. But keep in mind, sometimes it shows up a day or two late...

Quote from: Telesphorus

Look at the rep you can harvest being the first one to post the [Eleison] comments.

 :farmer:

And after all that hard work, Matthew can come in and change the global settings
to make you rep go bye-bye!  

 

I don't think the rep disappears.  Mine seems to be the same.  It is just the visible number of likes and dislikes, I think.

Bishop Williamson says:

"And where is that truth in 2012 ? Vatican II was a disaster for the Church - true or false ? The Church authorities who brought about Assisi III and John-Paul II’s “beatification” are clinging to Vatican II - true or false ?"

TRUE

"And so if the Society of Pius X puts itself under those same authorities, they will use all their prestige, and the power over the SSPX that it will have given them, to dissolve its resistance to Vatican II - true or false ?"

NONE OF THE ABOVE

It is clear that the Roman authorities are not about to regularize the Society unless the Society accepts Vatican II, and +Fellay has said several times in Australia, no doubt said in Econe, and will probably say publicly a dozen times more before the year is out, that the Society is not going to do any such thing.  So it looks as if it will be a long time before the issue is going to have any practical significance?  So why doesn't His Lordship patch things up, let things calm down, and start shouldering his fair share of confirmations?

Perhaps he shares the view of many cathinfo denizens: that since they never had any evidence that +Fellay was going to sell out, why shouldn't they just maintain on the same zero evidence that he will sell out sooner or later?

But let's assume that eventually we have a situation in which the Society is presented with a no doctrinal strings regularization proposal by a Vatican that is still not purged of all error.  

I would note that the SSPX is already under the authority of the Vicar of Christ.  Does +W deny that?  It he a practical SVist?  He doesn't say.  But let's leave that aside for the moment and more on to his next remarks:  

"So the SSPX runs a grave risk of losing steadily whatever will it still has to resist that prestige and power - true or false ? As Romans say, “Rome can wait” !"

Well, I don't know.  If Rome eventually were willing to offer a doctrinal no strings regularization, that would seem to mean that they are at least wavering in their modernism, or at least their confidence in their modernism.

I would further note that talking about the Vatican's "prestige" and "power" is very rather silly.  Their prestige and power has never been lower.  A reasonably bright tenth-grader can see through the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.  But let's leave that aside for the moment, and get to the real point.

Unless the constitution of the SSPX changes in the interim, making a judgment on the dangers and the opportunities associated with the decision will be that of +Fellay or of a subsequent SG.

It will not be +W's.  He can Monday morning quarterback it until the cows come come, he can hold his breath until he turns purple, he can quit the Society, he can demand that +F or his successor resign, but: HE CAN'T MAKE THE DECISION.  I know that this authority thing is a very hard saying for you (and +W), but I can't help that.  It's a Catholic thing that you folks don't seem to understand.

"Then in the SSPX today, if one “judges not according to the appearance but just judgment”, who is it that is being truly “divisive”? Who are the real “rebels against authority” ? Those who criticize such a risk of blending Catholic Truth with Conciliar error, or those who are promoting it ?"

Those being divisive and are +W and his tiny band of followers and/or fellow-travelers, because they are trying to usurp +F's authority on grounds that they know better than he.  

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Telesphorus

Look at the rep you can harvest being the first one to post the [Eleison] comments.

 :farmer:

And after all that hard work, Matthew can come in and change the global settings
to make you rep go bye-bye!  

 

I don't think the rep disappears.  Mine seems to be the same.  It is just the visible number of likes and dislikes, I think.

You're correct ............ so far ......................................................

 :cool:

Actually, is it possible that Mr. McFarland is a paid troll?  He comments on quite a few threads in the Rome-SSPX Agreement Section and his usual MO is to bombastically provoke and ridicule (or so it seems).

since they never had any evidence that +Fellay was going to sell out,

Mr. McFarland, you are deliberately blind and obtuse.  

Forum members have given you evidence after evidence of where +Fellay wanted to sell the SSPX out.  Most notably was the Spring 2012 AD interview where +Fellay discussed the Personal Prelature agreement where the local bishops would gain control of the SSPX chapels.  

+Fellay shrugged off the fact that yes, the local ordinaries would gain control, which would be a "problem" for some chapels, but "life is full of problems", so said +Fellay.  

+Fellay was consenting to give the sheep to the wolves.

The evidence came out of +Fellay's own mouth.  He damned himself.  

The accused made his confession ON CAMERA WHERE THE JURY COULD SEE FOR THEMSELVES.

VERDICT:   GUILTY AS CHARGED!!