Bishop Williamson wrote:

Quote

Thus there is no vicious circle (see EC 357 of last week) because Our Lord authorised Tradition and Tradition authorises the Magisterium. Indeed it is the function of the Pope to declare with authority what belongs to Tradition, and he will be divinely protected from error if he engages his full authority to do so, but he can make declarations outside of Tradition, in which case he will have no such protection. Now the novelties of Vatican II such as religious liberty and ecuмenism are way outside of Church Tradition. So they come under neither the Pope’s Ordinary nor his Extraordinary Magisterium, and all the nonsense of all the Conciliar Popes does not oblige any Catholic to become either a liberal or a sedevacantist.

This affirmation is scandalous, Your Excellency! Paul VI, whom you recognize as a legitimate Pope, confirmed ALL the Vatican II docuмents in the Holy Ghost. This is how Paul VI signed the sixteen docuмents of Vatican II. This is from Lumen Gentium:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Quote

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964

I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.

If Paul VI is a true and legitimate Pope, then, Your Excellency, you are a schismatic and a heretic!

It's understandable you'd subscribe to this outlook, Bernardus, but it's missing some essential ingredients.  Just because Paul VI SAID (wrote) that he was doing this "in the Holy Spirit" doesn't mean that he WAS doing so.  

For example, a pope is not infallible just because he says, "this is infallible."  In fact, his saying "this is infallible" isn't even one of the criteria!  Maybe you didn't know that.  

Last week (perhaps you missed it) +W listed 4 points of necessity that are indicators of infallibility, and not one of them is that the pope has to say "this is infallible," or that he is "doing this in the Holy Ghost." (They'd say "spirit" -- which could actually mean the unclean spirit of Vatican II -- have you considered that possibility?)

One of the key aspects of the extraordinary Magisterium has always been the condemnation of anyone who would refuse it or deny it.  But on October 11th, 1962 these Conciliar popes gave up the practice of condemnation of error.  They might as well have admitted that they were giving up the protection of the Holy Ghost, at that time.  Maybe you didn't know that.

Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?  He was the one who condemned Our Lord to death, you know (by making sure that it happened).  Did the fact that he saw to it that DEICIDE was perpetrated on the world enough to make him lose his office?  Why not?  Are you aware that Caiphas prophesied infallibly when he said it is expedient for one man to die for the people?

When St. Peter denied Our Lord three times did Jesus abandon him?  Later, when St. Peter scandalized the faithful by deliberately not eating with the uncircuмcized so as to appear to uphold the Old Covenant as if it were still in place (a heresy then and a heresy today as well), did he cease to be Pope?  

Was it a scandal for St. Paul to oppose him to his face?  

These are not simple times, but they are here, and it is our cross to undergo them:  "he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved" (Matt. xxiv. 13).

What +W is doing is he's trying to give us what we need to persevere to the end.  I think he's doing a pretty good job of it.  Show me another bishop anywhere else who's doing better.  Please.  


.

And, Your Excellency, what do you think about this docuмent?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6closin.htm (the conclusion of the page)

Quote

APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

The Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecuмenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecuмenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

I can't answer for him, but that docuмent is one of the blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception, which we've been making reparation for, ever since, by our First Saturdays devotions.   It was cranked out on that Feast Day in the middle of the abominable 1960's.   It was a great cause of suffering for the entire Church, even though the liberals took joy in it.  So did the devil.  

The following year, the Oath Against Modernism was abandoned.  Do you think that was another infallible act of the pope?  Then they tried to make Padre Pio do the "transitional rite" but he couldn't.  Was that okay with you, too?  Then they changed the episcopal consecration form, for NO GOOD REASON.  Was that okay too?  Then they changed the priestly ordination form -- again, for no good reason.  Was that okay too?  Then they came out with the abominable Newmass.  Again:  was that okay?  Were any of these acts infallible acts of the Pope?  In the USA the follow-up was Roe vs. Wade, by which abortion became legal in defiance of Humane Vitae of 1966, the one thing Paul VI did sort of okay.  Sort of.  

.

.

How could the abomination of Vat.II have been allowed to happen?  

The only reasonable answer is, God withdrew His grace from the Church.  
This is a spiritual chastisement.  

Our Lady came at Fatima to warn the world, and left us the Third Secret which was supposed to be made public in 1960 -- but it wasn't.  

This travesty of justice brought a curse on the Church, and we're still living it today.  

We are living a curse.  

The saints of old used to wonder how the Church could ever be brought down.  Well, we're seeing it happen before our eyes, and the faithful who should be together, supporting each other are at each other's throats attacking one another, while certain elements stand at the sidelines and cheer along the mayhem.

Pretty sad.   :cry:

.

There we have another weekly installment and immediately there is confusion and conflict.
It is not surprising given that the Bishop is again setting two herds in opposition, then closing the gates to the left and the right holding areas, he leaves only the middle gate open for escape from the ensuing stampede, the entrance to the R&R Corral.  

Now the novelties of Vatican II such as religious liberty and ecuмenism are way outside of Church Tradition. So they come under neither the Pope’s Ordinary nor his Extraordinary Magisterium,

And therein is where I completely disagree with him.

Quote from: Matto

I wonder who has more credibility among traditional Catholics, Bishop Williamson or Peter Vere?

I think Pete belongs here about as much as Scipio.

If you disagree with what he says then state where he is wrong and prove him wrong.  Ad hominems are useless.

Yes, I find it interesting that most of the posts in this thread are more about Peter Vere than the OP.

Based upon Peter Vere's post history, I would argue that PV would have responded the very same way even if +W hadn't mentioned "the liberals" along with the sedes.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?

No.

You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.

Neil, no Catholic ever/anywhere confused Caiphas as a Pope!

Don't believe everything you see or hear on YouTube.

Pax,
Ferdinand