We are in the middle of Lent, which is a good thing, because this is an
opportunity for the practice of penance: TO REFRAIN FROM PULLING OUT
OUR HAIR WHEN WE READ THIS KID OF ROT.
The gist of all these arguments comes down to:
"We're not liberal because the conciliar Church actually is the 'disfigured' Catholic Church after all, and those who oppose us must be sedes or schismatics."
"We're not liberal (just ignore all the double-speak) you're liberal! And we have authority. --
-- Because we said so!"
This is the neo-SSPX, behind its flood of verbiage.
A group whose leadership is in cahoots with GREC and the Zionist.
Fr. Laisney trips through hoops (instead of leaping) in an attempt to get
around his palpable liberalism-in-action.
He makes a false distinction, putting anyone who opposes his objectively
liberal agenda into one of two camps:
sedes or schismatics. "WE'RE not liberal! YOU'RE liberal!" Fr. Laisney would be wont to say -- but
he won't say that because it would be too honest. Instead he beats around
the bush.
I'd like to quote the untouchable himself, +W, in his recent conference from
the heartland of Laisney's comrade-in-arms, Fr. Rostand, Post Falls, Idaho.
This is from the Q&A portion of the conference, and is his answer to a question
that is not audible on the tape. It obviously had to do with what it means to
be a liberal and/or what it takes for something to qualify as papal infallibility.
This is a most edifying answer from Bishop Williamson.
I would recommend memorizing it, and when you quote it to an Accordista,
do not identify who it is whom you are quoting. Leave out the name of
Bishop Williamson, so as to LET THE ACCORDISTA APPRECIATE THE TRUTH
of what you are saying, to savor of the sweetness of the Master's Voice,
for it is something the Accordista is most likely HUNGRY to hear, and when
he hears it, he will know this is the voice of the master speaking. Let him
taste and see the goodness of the Lord, and once he gets this goodness
in mind, and is settled with the notion that it is good, THEN let him know
that these are words of Bishop Williamson. Let him then UNDO the
association in his mind of 'negativity' with the name, 'Williamson', let the
words do their work for you. Let him convince himself................
//////
From part 3 of 3 (it was a 3-hour conference; this is in the 3rd hour).
13:30
Let's say that true Tradition is between liberalism on one side and sedevacantism
on the other. Okay? And actually, sedevacantism is the flip side of liberalism.
Sedevacantism and liberalism are like heads and tails of the same coin. That
sounds strange, but the two are maybe closer to one another than either of
them is close to Tradition.
How can that be? Because sedevacantists and liberals both make the same
mistake, of exaggerating papal infallibility.
The Liberals say, "The popes are infallible, the popes are liberal, therefore,
liberalism is the truth." And that's what a lot of Catholics have been thinking.
The sedevacantists say, "The popes are infallible, these popes are liberal,
therefore they're not popes."
Two very different conclusions from the same premises.. Where's the error?
The logic is logical:
The popes are liberal, the popes are infallible, therefore liberalism is the truth. [Vs.]
The popes are liberal, liberalism is a miserable error, therefore they're not popes. Or,
The popes are infallible, liberalism is not infallible, therefore these liberal
popes are not popes. The error is in the exaggeration of papal infallibility.
And Tradition does not exaggerate papal infallibility.
Tradition understands papal infallibility not in a
lazy way, but in a
thinking way:
~ The Pope must be talking as Pope, as head of the Universal Church,
~ On a question of faith and morals,
~ In a definitive manner - "This is it, boys,"
~ And with a purpose of binding the whole Church. Those are the four conditions on which he's infallible. If any [one or more] of
those 4 conditions are absent, he's not infallible. [Then] he can make mistakes.
But what
both liberals and sedevacantists do is take things that he says when he's
certainly
not trying to bind the whole Church as though it's absolutely true,
simply because he's the pope saying them.
Papal infallibility needs some careful understanding!
And so Tradition makes God infallible, but not any human being. The Pope is
only, under certain strict conditions infallible, and
that stops a traditionalist from
being either a sedevacantist or a liberal. That's my view. I think that was the Archbishop's view. I think it would
be Bishop Fellay's view.
16:45
//////
I would go so far as to explain, that Bishop Fellay might admit to this in
private, so long as he believes no one is going to quote him in public, for
to make this view known would be to destroy the illusion that he and his
buddies have falsely constructed, as evidenced in the above writings of
Fr. Laisney, that is to say, the straw-man argument that anyone opposed
to them is a liberal, or else one of these two - either sede or schismatic.
Bishop Williamson did not address the category of schismatic in this answer,
but if he had done so, I expect he would say that schism is a different
kind of problem, because it is a well-established heresy. Liberalism is also
a heresy, but it is much more subtle. One can be a liberal and not know it.
One can be a Modernist and not know he is infected. Sedevacantism is
not really a heresy, though. It is kind of an extreme view that is based
on an exaggeration of papal infallibility. Schismatics are generally outside
this distinction for in the main, they deny papal infallibility altogether, or,
that is, so they would say they do, even if they are just saying so in order
to be "in unity" with their fellow schismatics.
I am sure glad that it is Our Lady's job to deal with all these factions. One
fine day, she's going to destroy all this heresy and corruption with one
stomp of her Immaculate heel.
Topic: LETTER TO PRIESTS AND FAITHFUL FATHER JOSEPH PFEIFFER (Read 5422 times)