Number CCCLX (360)              |                7th June 2014


“CONCILIAR CHURCH” ?



              The expression “Conciliar church” obviously expresses a reality, something real, namely the mass of people and institutions professing themselves to be Catholic but in fact sliding into the practice of the new humanist religion of the Second Vatican Council. “Sliding”, because Conciliarism, or neo-modernism, is precisely designed to enable Catholics to maintain the appearances of the Faith while they empty out the substance. Catholics in the concrete can make this process as fast or as slow as they wish, they need not even take it all the way to its conclusion, but Conciliarism in the abstract is utterly opposed to Catholicism and, taken to its conclusion, it destroys both Faith and Church, as it was meant to do.

              The process is not difficult to observe or to understand, but liberals at the head of the Society of St Pius X, seeking reconciliation with the Conciliarists in Rome, have done their best to confuse the question of the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church. For instance the Catholic Church is visible, they will say, and the Conciliar church is the visible church, so the Conciliar church is the Catholic Church, an argument dismissed years ago by Archbishop Lefebvre as “childish” (many churches are visible that are not Catholic). Equally childish is the argument that there is only one Church, so the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church must be one and the same (there are thousands of false churches).

              The truth is not too complicated. The Catholic Church is a living organism, both divine and human, like its Founder, Jesus Christ. As divine, as being his Immaculate Bride, it cannot be corrupt or corrupted, but as being made up of sinful human beings, it can partially rot just like any other living organism. So one useful way to understand how the Conciliar church relates to the Catholic Church is to think of a rotten apple.

              On the one hand the rot belongs to the apple. All rot was once apple. The rot is a corruption of the apple, a parasite on the apple, it could not exist without the apple and it remains firmly attached to the apple unless and until the rotten part falls off. Likewise Conciliarism belongs to the Catholic Church insofar as everything Conciliar was once Catholic, it is a corruption of the Catholic Church, a parasite on the Catholic Church, it could not exist without the Catholic Church, and it remains firmly attached to some part of the Catholic Church unless and until it destroys that part, as it was designed to do.

              On the other hand the rot does not belong to the apple. No apple was ever meant to go rotten. All rot is a transformation of some apple, a corruption and parasite of apple, transforming it for the worse, resulting in something quite different from apple, something which nobody in his right mind would dream of eating or of saying that it was no different from apple. Likewise Conciliarism does not belong to the Catholic Church, it is a corruption of something Catholic and is a parasite on whatever is Catholic. It transforms (a human part of) the Catholic Church for the worse, resulting in something essentially non-Catholic which no Catholic in his right mind would call Catholic or want to associate with, on pain of losing his faith.

              In brief, Conciliarism is rot, and the “Conciliar church” is the one divine-human Church being rotted in one or other of its human aspects. Of course the Catholic Church will last to the end of the world (Mt. XXVIII, 20), while the “Conciliar church” is merely one in a long line of parasite churches down the ages, living on what they rot and rotting what they live on. A plague on all liberals, confused and confusing !

              Kyrie eleison.


The Church does parts from God and man combine.
The human can be rotted, not the divine.



   
Contact Us:

Please write to the applicable email address from among the following with your questions, comments, or concerns:

letters@dinoscopus.org

- for comments to the author about a particular issue of Eleison Comments.

info@dinoscopus.org

- for general questions or comments.

admin@dinoscopus.org

- to resolve technical concerns or problems.

editorial@dinoscopus.org

- for back issues of Eleison Comments.
Donate

While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by contacting:

donate@dinoscopus.org

© 2011-2014 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.

Permissions inquiries should be directed to editorial@dinoscopus.org.
www.dinoscopus.org

.

              The process is not difficult to observe or to understand, but liberals at the head of the Society of St Pius X, seeking reconciliation with the Conciliarists in Rome, have done their best to confuse the question of the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church. For instance the Catholic Church is visible, they will say, and the Conciliar church is the visible church, so the Conciliar church is the Catholic Church --- an argument dismissed years ago by Archbishop Lefebvre as “childish” (many churches are visible that are not Catholic). Equally childish is the argument that there is only one Church, so the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church must be one and the same (there are thousands of false churches).

The visibility of the Church has long been a topic of theological speculation.  

I wish H.E. would provide a footnote where this dismissal from ABL can be found.  I'd like to see just how he spoke about it, in context and all.

It seems to me that Accordistas and Fellayites really hang on to this 'visible' canard like a lifeline.  +F and his cronies drop this axiom in their laps and they accept it without examination, as if it's prima facie gospel.  When all it is, is theological speculation.  It's not doctrine, nor can it be.  How much rotten apple can we have in plain view before it becomes obvious that something about what we see as ostensibly the Church, isn't the Church at all?  Everyone has his own answer to that.  


Syllogism Time!

Literally, the sentence, "Equally childish is the argument that there is only one Church, so the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church must be one and the same (there are thousands of false churches)," is not attributed here to ABL directly.   We could reasonably surmise, therefore, that this is a logical conclusion that +W has made, based on his lifetime of experience:

Major proposition:
ABL correctly identified as "childish" the notion that proclaims, "the Catholic Church is visible, and the Conciliar church is the visible church, so the Conciliar church is the Catholic Church," because, many churches are visible that are not Catholic.

Minor proposition:
But now, some would believe that "there is only one Church, so the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church must be one and the same," even while there are thousands of false churches.

Conclusion:
The latter is likewise correctly identified as childish by the same principle as the former, because using right reason, we can see that it follows the same childish thinking process that the former does, even if ABL had not specifically pronounced judgment on the latter.  


Notice too, that the Major, Minor and Conclusion are syllogisms of their own.
Notice too, each of these internal syllogisms can be subdivided into additional syllogisms.
Notice too, that even while the Fellayites are all gushingly swooningly approving of Vat.II as "acceptable," they fail to apply its false teachings when they have the chance, such as here, where they ought to be saying that The Catholic Church subsists in the visible Church."  (Cf. LG 8)


.

.

Remember this?


.

What you see, is what you get! :dancing:

"No apple is ever meant to go rotten." according to His Excellency.

Not true.  Rotting is part of the life cycle of fruit bearing trees.  Apples, like all fruit, contain the seeds of future fruit bearing trees. In order for these seeds to become implanted in the earth they have to go through one of two processes.  

If a passing animal eats the fruit the seeds will be excreted, thereby falling to the ground.  Or the apple will simply fall from the tree and lie uneaten on the ground until it rots, also releasing the seeds.  

If fruit didn't rot, new trees wouldn't grow.



 

I think he means that figuratively, or that the apple was created for man just like all other things and is meant to be used. Perhaps, in the garden of Eden apples did not rot.

Nor is an underdeveloped apple what we think of when we say "apple."  That would be an apple before it matures, or an unripe apple, or a "little green apple."  One could say, "No little green apple is ever meant to be eaten."

The normal state for an apple AS APPLE is a fully developed, ripe, appealing and healthful food -- an apple.  


.

Neil,

I think you have gone a little off track in this comparison of an unripe apple. It is not relevant to the analogy being used by H.E. Bishop Williamson regarding putrefaction.

Besides, many cultures other than your own have customs of eating unripe fruit. For you to declare that unripe fruit is not to be eaten and try to impose that ideology on the world is a little too much for yourself.