Author Topic: Eleison Comments CCCXLI (Read 2310 times)

LoverOfTradition · « **on:** January 24, 2014, 07:03:04 PM »

Powerful and interesting words from His Excellency! God bless Bishop Williamson!

SEDEVACANTIST ANXIETY I

The words and deeds of Pope Francis since his election earlier last year have been so little Catholic and so outrageous, that the idea that recent popes have not really been Popes (”sedevacantism”) has been given a new lease of life. Notice that Pope Francis merely expresses more blatantly than his five predecessors the madness of Vatican II. The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

The question is not of prime importance. If they have not been Popes, still the Catholic Faith and morals by which I must “work out my salvation in fear and trembling” (Phil. II, 12) have not changed one iota. And if they have been Popes, still I cannot obey them whenever they have departed from that Faith and those morals, because “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts, V, 29). However I believe in offering answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments, because there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe. In my opinion it is no such thing. “In things doubtful, liberty” (Augustine).

I think that the key to the problem of which sedevacantism is merely one expression is that Vatican II was a disaster without precedent in all the history of the Church of Jesus Christ, while at the same time it was the logical conclusion of a long decadence of the Catholic churchmen reaching back to the late Middle Ages. On the one hand the divine nature of the Catholic Church and the principles governing any of its crises, including the Conciliar crisis, cannot change. On the other hand the application of those principles must take into account the ever changing human circuмstances within which those principles operate. The degree of human corruption today has no precedent.

Now two of the unchanging principles are that on the one hand the Church is indefectible because Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Mt.XVI, 18). On the other hand Our Lord also asked if he would find faith on earth at his Second Coming (Lk. XVIII, 8), an important quotation because it clearly suggests that the Church will almost completely have defected at the end of the world, just as it seems to be almost completely defecting in 2014. For indeed if we are not today living through the end of the world, we are surely living through the dress rehearsal for that end of the world, as Our Lady of La Salette, the Venerable Holzhauser and Cardinal Billot all suggest.

Therefore today, as at world’s end, the defection can go very far. It cannot reach beyond the power of Almighty God to guarantee that his Church will never altogether disappear or fail, but it can reach as far as God will allow, in other words nothing need stop his Church from defecting almost completely. And just how far is that “almost completely”? God alone knows, and so time alone can tell, because none of us men are in the mind of God, and only the facts can reveal to us after the event the contents of the divine mind. But God does partly reveal his mind in Scripture.

Now as to the end of the world, many interpreters of Chapter XIII, 11-17 of the Apocalypse think that the lamb-like Second Beast serving the Antichrist is the authorities of the Church, because if those authorities resisted the Antichrist he could never prevail, as Scripture says he will. Then is it so extraordinary if in the dress rehearsal for the end of the world the Vicars of Christ talk and behave like enemies of Christ ? Against this necessary background, next week’s “Comments” will propose answers to some of the sedevacantists’ main arguments.

Kyrie eleison.

Columba · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2014, 09:18:53 PM »

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

The question is not of prime importance.

Thank you HE for a refreshingly balanced treatment of the question.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe.

Many R&R's make a dogma of their position as well. In fact there has been a cacophony of individual trads' pet causes transformed into dogmas. Everyone today develops their own unique conception of orthodoxy.

clarkaim · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2014, 09:56:01 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

The question is not of prime importance.

Thank you HE for a refreshingly balanced treatment of the question.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe.

Many R&R's make a dogma of their position as well. In fact there has been a cacophony of individual trads' pet causes transformed into dogmas. Everyone today develops their own unique conception of orthodoxy.

When Bishop spent the night before 4 July this past in my home, I must admit I was more 'star-struck' than anything else. I realized that I could not think of anything of which I disagree with him to engage in controversy (my preferred mode of discussion, why I love apologetics so much) Tne best I could muster was a preference for Ludwig Van vs. Mozart, but then again I am an unrepentant metal head anyway.

My pet cause transformed to dogma would be red wine, cigars, and belt-fed machine guns I guess. if you don't like those, you will not be saved!!!!!!!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:54:26 AM »

.

Your Roman Numerals need work, LoverOfTradition.

You have CCCLXI (361) but it should be CCCXLI (341).

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2014, 01:21:02 AM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe.

Many R&R's make a dogma of their position as well. In fact there has been a cacophony of individual trads' pet causes transformed into dogmas. Everyone today develops their own unique conception of orthodoxy.

How about the sedevacantists who want to make baptism of desire into a dogma that Catholics must believe? And when you ask them if it's defined, they say, "Yes, it is defined." And when you ask them what the date was, they don't have a date, but they hand you a 1" stack of papers including TheResidual -- I mean The Remnant screeds from the likes of Fr. Martin Stepanich from 1974, whose vile speech and malignant attitude is nothing Catholic and whose words are a waste of toner and paper. How anyone would be interested in the religion he professes is a great mystery.

On the other extreme, there are the sedevacantists who want to make BoD into a heresy that excludes you from the Church! Is this the 'variety' that's the 'spice of life' or something else?

Quote from: H.E.

Against this necessary background, next week’s “Comments” will propose answers to some of the sedevacantists’ main arguments.

Maybe, if he hasn't already written it, H.E. might consider showing how he is not in AGREEMENT with the sedes who claim that BoD is a dogma, but as if they are fools incarnate, they cannot prove it because it cannot be proved. But I hardly expect it is already an item on his hit-list, unfortunately. Maybe, just maybe that could change. All it would take is one short sentence, less than one line in 49.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2014, 01:36:52 AM »

Quote from: clarkaim

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Bishop Williamson
The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

The question is not of prime importance.

Thank you HE for a refreshingly balanced treatment of the question.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe.

Many R&R's make a dogma of their position as well. In fact there has been a cacophony of individual trads' pet causes transformed into dogmas. Everyone today develops their own unique conception of orthodoxy.

When Bishop spent the night before 4 July this past in my home, I must admit I was more 'star-struck' than anything else. I realized that I could not think of anything of which I disagree with him to engage in controversy (my preferred mode of discussion, why I love apologetics so much) The best I could muster was a preference for Ludwig Van vs. Mozart, but then again I am an unrepentant metal head anyway.

My pet cause transformed to dogma would be red wine, cigars, and belt-fed machine guns I guess. If you don't like those, you will not be saved!!!!!!!

That doesn't say much for the chance Liberals would have at salvation!

And it's interesting to see that a "metal head" has survived a "close encounter." Maybe you just got lucky this time! (Or did you somehow manage to conceal that nuance from him?)

.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2014, 07:47:51 AM »

Though I agree with him that the "question is not of prime importance," and that no one should consider the conclusion to be a dogma either way, I note that he really didn't, "offer answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments."

He made an argument, but I don't see what the sedevacantist argument was that he answered. Further, I don't think the argument he made is very compelling.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2014, 08:07:44 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Though I agree with him that the "question is not of prime importance," and that no one should consider the conclusion to be a dogma either way, I note that he really didn't, "offer answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments."

He made an argument, but I don't see what the sedevacantist argument was that he answered. Further, I don't think the argument he made is very compelling.

HE hasn't provided his answers to the sedes' main arguments yet. This was "necessary background."

Quote from: When +W

Against this necessary background, next week’s “Comments” will propose answers to some of the sedevacantists’ main arguments.

HE was talking about SEDEVACANTIST ANXIETY II, which comes out in 7 days from now.

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2014, 08:21:46 AM »

Today’s EC is one of the best I’ve ever read. It was very satisfying, especially in it’s more pan-Catholic outreach.

This was the money paragraph:

The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ. The question is not of prime importance. If they have not been Popes, still the Catholic Faith and morals by which I must “work out my salvation in fear and trembling” (Phil. II, 12) have not changed one iota. And if they have been Popes, still I cannot obey them whenever they have departed from that Faith and those morals, because “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts, V, 29). However I believe in offering answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments, because there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe. In my opinion it is no such thing. “In things doubtful, liberty” (Augustine).

I believe that if both R&R and SV can be dispensed with as locked-in, coerced, exclusive trad ‘positions,’ and if the above described most excellent and very Catholic liberty can replace them – as very much “taking into account the ever changing human circuмstances within which [Catholic] principles operate” – so that God might always find us standing girded, and, as it were, ready to walk; not stalling out by perennially trying to artificially replicate ABL’s SSPX of 20 years - we can hope to achieve the indispensible, albeit stopgap ‘unity’ (as opposed to the Unity of the Church under the Headship of the Catholic Vicar of Christ), prerequisite to Heaven moving to extirpate our enemies, by whatever means God chooses.

The more they divide us, the more they win.

The more we resist being divided, the more grace we obtain.

Yet I do not see the SSPX cινιℓ ωαr as an evil division, but rather akin to the violent dissolution of a blood clot blocking a major artery. The Good God did us a very big favor in unmasking that hidden deception. He tore down the old structure to make room to build anew on the city lot. He has given us a building permit, and now we must make sure that we adhere to the correct blueprint for the erection of a greater and more glorious Counter-Revolution – which will have for its hallmark unity in things certain; liberty in things doubtful; and charity in ALL; along with a vigorous, fearless attack on ALL of the heresies of the age, and not just religious indifferentism.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2014, 08:22:58 AM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

The question is not of prime importance.

Thank you HE for a refreshingly balanced treatment of the question.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe.

Many R&R's make a dogma of their position as well. In fact there has been a cacophony of individual trads' pet causes transformed into dogmas. Everyone today develops their own unique conception of orthodoxy.

Darn tootin'!

peterp · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2014, 09:09:51 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Though I agree with him that the "question is not of prime importance," and that no one should consider the conclusion to be a dogma either way, I note that he really didn't, "offer answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments."

He made an argument, but I don't see what the sedevacantist argument was that he answered. Further, I don't think the argument he made is very compelling.

I agree, plus it is worth noting that his first step it to try and downplay the sedevcanist position. He actually won't rebut the position; truth be told he is a bit of theological light-weight, especially when you compare him to the three society bishops.

One could listen to Bp. de Galarreta who'd get all Thomisic and the quiet monotone voice would seem boring and lose the audience, yet the content would be strong and solid, Whereas Bp. Williamson would entertain with his silly voices and name-calling etc. The fact that the content would be complete nonsense is irrelevant. He's an entertainer and knows how play to his audience, I guess.

That is why if were ever to debate the issue with, say, Fr. Cekada or even John Lane they would tear him to pieces (and he knows it). No, this EC is really "Why I am not a sedevacantist"; where he will try to convince everyone that he isn't (objectively he is even if he refuses to acknowledge it).

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2014, 09:46:00 AM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: TKGS
Though I agree with him that the "question is not of prime importance," and that no one should consider the conclusion to be a dogma either way, I note that he really didn't, "offer answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments."

He made an argument, but I don't see what the sedevacantist argument was that he answered. Further, I don't think the argument he made is very compelling.

I agree, plus it is worth noting that his first step it to try and downplay the sedevcanist position. He actually won't rebut the position; truth be told he is a bit of theological light-weight, especially when you compare him to the three society bishops.

One could listen to Bp. de Galarreta who'd get all Thomisic and the quiet monotone voice would seem boring and lose the audience, yet the content would be strong and solid, Whereas Bp. Williamson would entertain with his silly voices and name-calling etc. The fact that the content would be complete nonsense is irrelevant. He's an entertainer and knows how play to his audience, I guess.

That is why if were ever to debate the issue with, say, Fr. Cekada or even John Lane they would tear him to pieces (and he knows it). No, this EC is really "Why I am not a sedevacantist"; where he will try to convince everyone that he isn't (objectively he is even if he refuses to acknowledge it).

For a short reply you certainly make quite a few assumptions and presumptions that are very questionable. Hard to find any good will in there

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:22:30 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Your Roman Numerals need work, LoverOfTradition.

You have CCCLXI (361) but it should be CCCXLI (341).

.

I apologize. It was a typo. Could you so kindly fix it, Matthew?

Columba · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2014, 03:18:16 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: TKGS
Though I agree with him that the "question is not of prime importance," and that no one should consider the conclusion to be a dogma either way, I note that he really didn't, "offer answers to some of the sedevacantists’ arguments."

He made an argument, but I don't see what the sedevacantist argument was that he answered. Further, I don't think the argument he made is very compelling.

I agree, plus it is worth noting that his first step it to try and downplay the sedevcanist position. He actually won't rebut the position; truth be told he is a bit of theological light-weight, especially when you compare him to the three society bishops.

One could listen to Bp. de Galarreta who'd get all Thomisic and the quiet monotone voice would seem boring and lose the audience, yet the content would be strong and solid, Whereas Bp. Williamson would entertain with his silly voices and name-calling etc. The fact that the content would be complete nonsense is irrelevant. He's an entertainer and knows how play to his audience, I guess.

That is why if were ever to debate the issue with, say, Fr. Cekada or even John Lane they would tear him to pieces (and he knows it). No, this EC is really "Why I am not a sedevacantist"; where he will try to convince everyone that he isn't (objectively he is even if he refuses to acknowledge it).

Your performance in this thread is consistent with your behavior when discussing other non-related topics.

Columba · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2014, 03:21:04 PM »

Quote from: clarkaim

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Bishop Williamson
The question remains whether any of the six Conciliar Popes (with the possible exception of John-Paul I) can really have been Vicars of Christ.

The question is not of prime importance.

Thank you HE for a refreshingly balanced treatment of the question.

Quote from: Bishop Williamson
there are sedevacantists who seem to wish to make the vacant See of Rome into a dogma which Catholics must believe.

Many R&R's make a dogma of their position as well. In fact there has been a cacophony of individual trads' pet causes transformed into dogmas. Everyone today develops their own unique conception of orthodoxy.

When Bishop spent the night before 4 July this past in my home, I must admit I was more 'star-struck' than anything else. I realized that I could not think of anything of which I disagree with him to engage in controversy (my preferred mode of discussion, why I love apologetics so much) Tne best I could muster was a preference for Ludwig Van vs. Mozart, but then again I am an unrepentant metal head anyway.

My pet cause transformed to dogma would be red wine, cigars, and belt-fed machine guns I guess. if you don't like those, you will not be saved!!!!!!!

That's my kinda religion. You are now officially my new trad guru. Tell me in what part of the country you reside so I can relocate there.
:smoke-pot: