Author Topic: FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY (Read 16657 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2014, 02:58:02 PM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?

According to Bishop Williamson's argument, if "Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome", then the Conciliar popes are the 'popes' of that occupying force. How, then, can they be Catholic popes, especially if "Conciliarism is heresy" as the Bishop maintains.

Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument, because if the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic popes. They are only 'popes' of the heretical Conciliar Church, meaning that the Catholic Church at present has no pope. Therefore the Seat is vacant.

Bp. Williamson has explained this in the following way:

[i]We can think of an apple partially rotten: one part is still good while the other is not, but both parts are the apple. The conciliar church would be the rotten part while the Catholic Church would be the good part, but the pope is the pope of the whole thing: pope of the conciliar church and pope of the Catholic Church.[/i]

I disagree with the bishop, but when he has been asked about this matter, that is what he has answered.

So what we have according to the bolded is a Divine Institution that teaches both truth and error at the same time, and a pope of two churches one good and one bad???

That is not my definition of what a Divine Institution is, no wonder Protestants are laughing at us.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2014, 03:05:31 PM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Bishop Williamson is saying that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

How can he then inisist, as he so frequesntly does, that the Conciliar popes are Catholic popes?

According to Bishop Williamson's argument, if "Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome", then the Conciliar popes are the 'popes' of that occupying force. How, then, can they be Catholic popes, especially if "Conciliarism is heresy" as the Bishop maintains.

Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion of Bishop Williamson's own argument, because if the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic popes. They are only 'popes' of the heretical Conciliar Church, meaning that the Catholic Church at present has no pope. Therefore the Seat is vacant.

Bp. Williamson has explained this in the following way:

We can think of an apple partially rotten: one part is still good while the other is not, but both parts are the apple. The conciliar church would be the rotten part while the Catholic Church would be the good part, but the pope is the pope of the whole thing: pope of the conciliar church and pope of the Catholic Church.

I disagree with the bishop, but when he has been asked about this matter, that is what he has answered.

The rotten apple analogy and the cuckoo occupying the nightingale's nest analogy are quite different. In this EC, +W is separating the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church entirely. Has his thinking changed here? If so, then his conclusions about the pope question must also change..

If the Conciliar Church is a separate entity from the true Catholic Church, then the men at the head of the Conciliar Church - the Conciliar popes - cannot also be Popes of the true Catholic Church.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2014, 03:08:30 PM »

Quote from: Ferdinand

Quote from: More Importantly Archbishop Lefebvre
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”

~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976

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.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2014, 03:41:28 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Ferdinand
Quote from: More Importantly Archbishop Lefebvre
“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a docuмent, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....”

~Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976

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.

Agreed! :geezer:

Matto · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2014, 03:46:33 PM »

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.