Quote from: Matto

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.

LOL.

Wrt OP I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.

I don't think he'll go sedevacantist anytime soon. I'm sure of it.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

If the Conciliar church is not Catholic, as Archbishop Lefebvre claims here, then the head of the this Conciliar church cannot also be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Of course. Everyone knows that the true Pope is not Francis, but Gregory XVIII.

LOL.

Wrt OP I do think that we are seeing a shift in +Williamson's thinking and I have to wonder (considering some other comments he has made in the recent past) whether sedevacantism isn't too far down the road for him.

I don't think he'll go sedevacantist anytime soon. I'm sure of it.

I agree, not "soon". But I wouldn't rule it out in the next 5-10 years.  I just hope he loses his penchant for believing in private revelations if/when he does.

The word sedevacante translates to the "seat is vacant". If the seat is vacant, that would mean that we should elect someone to fill the vacant seat.... but you can't do that because there is someone occupying the seat who is the bishop of Rome who happens to be teaching false doctrine in a non-infallible capacity.

Here lies the dilemma and why the term "sedevacante" makes no sense for this application.
The term sedevacante refers to a time between popes when no one is alive to occupy the chair. When the church is in this state, it works toward electing a new pope.

Back before the Western Schism, do you think any Catholic believed there could be more than one papal claimant at one time?  And yet it happened.

Anyway, my posts here weren't about turning this into another debate about sedevacantism. I just think that +Williamson's thinking seems to be shifting in that direction.

Ascent, how does sedeprivationism differ from sedeplenism and sedevacantism?

I still don't get it.

Where is roscoe when we need him?

What I find amazing about all this is that the bishop's ECs are continually and faithfully reprinted on Cathinfo.  This latest EC is posted by Adolphus, who is is one of the bishop's most unrelenting critics.

I post what I think may be of interest in the forum, which does not have to be something I agree with or something I like.

For example, I have posted items regarding new signals of Bp. Fellay's betrayal or heresies/apostasies of Francis or BXVI.

He completely trashes the remote possibility that H.E.'s contention that Our Lady might have appeared to a "messenger" might be true.

No.  I do believe that Our Lady might have appeared to someone She had chosen as Her messenger.

What I don't believe is that Our Lady had backed the first Rosary Crusade to help the conciliar church to humiliate the Holy Mass.

I know the first Rosary Crusade was not a success, since none of the three intentions was accomplished, not even partially.

What I don't believe is that Our Lady had said that BXVI was well intentioned.  He might have fooled Bp. Fellay, but not the Mother of God.

And the list could continue, but I'll cut it short.

Bp. W. never deviates from his original narrative over the course of five separate and consecutive ECs.

I don't know about you, but I think H.E. modified some words in his third chapter probably because of the critics aroused by the previous chapter:

So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.

In 2007 Benedict XVI partially satisfied the pre-conditon with his Motu Proprio. Rejoicing as though it were a complete satisfaction, Bishop Fellay moved on to the second pre-condition

Both expressions are wrong, yet do not express the same idea.

H.E. simply notes correctly in EC 380 that Benedict did indeed acknowledge that a a "wish" of +F had been fulfilled, viz. that the Old Mass had never been abrogated.

Some prefer to ignore the fact that Bp. Williamson said, incorrectly, that the first Crusade had been a success:

So, given the backing of Our Lady, the first Crusade was an unexpected success, both in the number of rosaries prayed by the people, and in Pope Benedict XVI’s fulfilment of Bishop Fellay’s long-standing wish by the declaration in his Motu Proprio of July 2007, that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.

The first Crusade was not a success, since none of the intentions was accomplished:

Along the same lines, the Chapter asks me to communicate to you the following ambitious project: The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.

These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:

1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.

2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Again, none of these intentions were accomplished.  Not even partially.

H.E. notes incorrectly that BXVI acknowledged that the Holy Mass had never been abrogated.

«In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form. By this act, Benedict XVI made the Roman rite of Mass lose, de jure, its status as the only ordinary and official form, and relegated it to the status of “extraordinary form”, after having humiliated it by comparing its sanctity to that of the “bastard rite.”»  (A Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX)

In EC381, it becomes clear that it had been "partially satisfied."

Again, H.E. says incorrectly that the precondition had been "partially satisfied".

In which manner could it have been partially satisfied? Partially freeing the Holy Mass?  Then the Mass would not have been completely freed.

And let us no forget that those pre-conditions were asked as signals of good will.  Was such humiliation a signal of good will?  Is that how a precondition was satisfied?

And regarding the "apparitions" to the "messenger":

I do believe that Our Lady might have appeared to someone She had chosen as Her messenger.

What I don't believe is that Our Lady had backed the first Rosary Crusade to help the conciliar church to humiliate the Holy Mass.

I know the first Rosary Crusade was not a success, since none of the three intentions was accomplished, not even partially.

What I don't believe is that Our Lady had said that BXVI was well intentioned.  He might have fooled Bp. Fellay, but not the Mother of God.

And the list could continue, but I'll cut it short.

Adolphus:

Quote

«In reality, the Motu Proprio says that the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated as the extraordinary form but that it was repealed as the ordinary form.

And we didn't know that, Jaime?

I don't know who you refer to when you say "we".  But Bp. Williamson seems to ignore it.

I don't know either why you got visceral and request irrelevant information.

I don't know who you are and know a little about what you think, but I don't pay too much attention to the persons nor the names.  I prefer to focus on the ideas.

Anyone can register in fora and some even to still identities and impersonate as someone else.