Author Topic: FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY (Read 10280 times)

Adolphus · « **on:** November 23, 2014, 12:12:42 PM »

FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY

November 22, 2014
Number CCCLXXXIV (384)

A great Archbishop, forty years ago,
Measured the Council’s doctrine, and said “No.”

Yesterday was the 40 th anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s historic Declaration on November 21, 1974, of the reasons for which he and the priests and laity following him were taking their stand against the total change of the Catholic Church and religion being wrought in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The Declaration is a fresh today as it was on the day when it was written, because the true Catholic religion of God is unchangingly true, while the Conciliar religion of man is resolutely false and it is occupying Rome more than ever.

The Declaration consists of ten brief paragraphs, little more than 50 lines in all: 1/ We cleave to Catholic Rome, eternal Rome. 2/ We refuse Conciliar Rome, neo-Protestant and neo-modernist. 3/ The Conciliar reform is destroying the Catholic Church and diminishing our Catholic Faith, 4/ as not even an angel from Heaven has the right to do (Galatians I, 8). 5/ We choose Tradition, we refuse innovations. 6/ Everything in the Church is being renewed in a way opposite to age-old Catholic doctrine. 7/ The Conciliar reform, coming from heresy and resulting in heresy, is unacceptable to Catholics, so 8/ we shall continue to form Traditional priests. 9/ And we shall cleave to the Catholic teaching and practice of all time, 10/ being convinced that by so doing we will remain truly faithful Catholics.

Notice firstly the clear and sharp distinction (1 and 2) between Catholic Rome and Conciliar Rome. Now it is true to say that Conciliar Rome is occupying the structures of Catholic Rome, but to say that the Conciliar Church is therefore none other than the Catholic Church is as foolish as to say that a cuckoo is a nightingale because it occupies a nightingale’s nest. (And to say that the Archbishop wrote of Conciliar and Catholic “Rome” and not of the Conciliar and Catholic “Church” is to quibble with words.)

But how does the Archbishop distinguish between Conciliar cuckoo and Catholic nightingale? By doctrine! Conciliarism is neo- Protestant and neo- modernist (2). Our faith is being diminished (3), in opposition to Catholic doctrine (6). Conciliarism is heresy (7). We cleave to Catholic teaching (9). And the brief summary above does not give all of the Archbishop’s references to doctrine. Catholic doctrine was the Northern star of his mind and action. It is because modern man wants freedom for his mind and action that he in effect wants his mind to be reduced to mush, whereupon doctrine has no more than a merely decorous function. It has no more bite upon man’s action, except the one disastrous doctrine that doctrine is unimportant. And that disastrous doctrine has a total bite. Here is why the Archbishop is being reduced within the Society of St Pius X, which he founded, to little more than a decorous mascot.

One is impelled to ask, what is it going to take to restore the bite of doctrine, the sense of reality and the love of truth in Society, Church and world? Surely suffering, no less. Solzhenitsyn made a remark to the effect that it will take the crowbar of events to smash open the concrete casing which modern man has built around his sinful way of life. Truly, Lord have mercy.

Kyrie eleison.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2014, 01:45:11 PM »

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.

Adolphus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2014, 01:57:10 PM »

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.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2014, 02:45:53 PM »

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

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2014, 02:57:41 PM »

Nado said,

Quote

You forget, these men are head of the true Church and head of a false Church simultaneously!

Maybe not at the same time, but just moonlight for the true Church, part-time....one hour per month.

How can the head of a false church also be the Pope of the true Catholic Church?

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.

Adolphus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2014, 04:09:47 PM »

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.

Everyone? Who is Gregory XVIII? :confused1:

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2014, 04:18:41 PM »

Quote from: Adolphus

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.

Everyone? Who is Gregory XVIII? :confused1:

I was just kidding. Some traditionalists think that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in '58 and took the name of Gregory XVII but was forced to resign under threat. Because he stepped down under pressure they claim that he was the true Pope instead of John XXIII and remained Pope until his death. They claim that before Siri died he secretly appointed cardinals who elected a new Pope after his death. This new Pope supposedly took the name of Gregory XVIII and he is reigning now in secret.

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2014, 04:57:00 PM »

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.

JPaul · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2014, 06:56:49 PM »

Quote

A great Archbishop, forty years ago,
Measured the Council’s doctrine, and said “No.”

Was that before or after he signed the docuмents?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2014, 07:46:09 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Adolphus
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.

Everyone? Who is Gregory XVIII? :confused1:

I was just kidding. Some traditionalists think that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in '58 and took the name of Gregory XVII but was forced to resign under threat. Because he stepped down under pressure they claim that he was the true Pope instead of John XXIII and remained Pope until his death. They claim that before Siri died he secretly appointed cardinals who elected a new Pope after his death. This new Pope supposedly took the name of Gregory XVIII and he is ~~reigning~~ [playing solitaire] now in secret.

:roll-laugh2: