Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577) (Read 8948 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #120 on:** August 10, 2018, 09:59:47 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 10, 2018, 08:23:51 AM

1. Some sort of cogent explanation for why every single Doctor, Saint, catechism and other authority post Trent were in the wrong and now have need of the saintly Feeneyites several centuries later to correct them.

2. For why St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas and all the medieval Doctors and scholastic theologians especially after Pope Innocent II and III were also wrong, while the heretical Peter Abelard was right.

Both of these are very simply explained. It's for the very same reasons that centuries of Doctors, saints, and theologians were wrong in following St. Augustine about the fate of infants who die without Baptism. In that case, also, for about 800 years EVERYONE got it wrong, until the "heretical" Abelard came along and overturned this teaching. In the end, the Church sided with Abelard on this particular issue.

St. Augustine had a LOT of authority in the Middle Ages. In fact, it had been exaggerated to the point that the Church felt the need to condemn the proposition that the opinions of St. Augustine can be held even above and against the teaching of the Church. But there wasn't a lot written about BoD between the time of St. Augustine and then the early scholastics or pre-scholastics ... except a rejection thereof from St. Fulgentius, a disciple of St. Augustine.

What happened then was that Hugh of St. Victor and Abelard were feuding over BoD. Peter Lombard couldn't decided between these two opinions, so he wrote to St. Bernard. St. Bernard tentatively sided with the Augustinian opinion (as he saw it, since nobody was aware that St. Augustine had retracted it), saying that he'd rather be "wrong with Augustine" than right on his own. Peter Lombard then went with that. St. Thomas and other early scholastic theologians picked it up from there. And once St. Thomas had that opinion, it went viral, so to speak. But at no point has the theological note risen above that of an opinion of speculative theology. So it wasn't actually post-Trent but, rather, post-Aquinas.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #121 on:** August 10, 2018, 10:16:31 AM »

Now, back to supremely important question of the new mass...

Quote

In no way is this treatise a defense of the New Mass, which the author continuously refers to as evil – In the same Q&A exchange from which Bishop Williamson is falsely accused of promoting the New Mass (which would be in violation of the SSPX’s Pledge of Fidelity), he has actually condemned it no fewer than 12 times!

I agree, the NO is evil. I agree, +W and +ABL do not promote the NO, yet neither do they condemn it 100%. If +W condemns it 12x but not the 13th, then his condemnation is not absolute. Anything which is evil, must be absolutely condemned. Therefore, the Bishop's lack of absolute condemnation is an error.

Quote

– Ignorance as an exceptional cause for attendance at the New Mass applies only to Conciliar Catholics, not Traditionalists

If the NO is evil, then ignorance does not change its evilness, it only affects the guilt of the individual. Yet, the evil/sinfullness of the NO still offends God. Just as Truth exists outside of ourselves, so does evil/untruth.

Quote

– Archbishop Lefebvre fully vindicates and corroborates the prudent, charitable approach of Bishop Williamson – A key part of the debate is in distinguishing between the objective principle and the subjective application, the former asserting that nobody should attend the New Mass and the latter allowing for certain exceptions (extreme spiritual necessity, ignorance, etc.)

How can attending an evil, anti-catholic ceremony ever be spiritually profitable? How can an evil act be done for a "spiritual necessity"? This makes no sense.

Quote

– These distinctions are found in the Catholic science of “casuistry” – While the New Rite is intrinsically evil, it does not necessarily follow that those who attend are automatically committing an intrinsically evil act

I agree, the NO is intrinsically evil because it is a sin against the Faith, against the 1st commandment (and probably the 3rd). While I have no idea if those who attend a NO commit an intrinsically evil act, they do commit an evil act nonetheless, even if it is not intrinsic. The intrinsic nature of the act is irrelevant; it's still evil, since it's an uncatholic blasphemy.

Quote

– On Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo, it’s not only possible but a miracle is present in every validly performed Novus Ordo consecration (few as they may be) – Bishop Williamson’s adversaries attack his character rather than answer his arguments (because his arguments are beyond reproof, as this study clearly shows).

The presence of a miracle in no way condones or makes virtuous the attendance at the NO. At certain black masses, the consecration is valid and a miracle takes place as well. The holiness of the mass is not entirely dependent upon the consecration; it is dependent upon the ENTIRE LITURGY, for the consecration is but a PART OF the mass.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #122 on:** August 10, 2018, 11:01:14 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 10, 2018, 09:59:47 AM

Both of these are very simply explained. It's for the very same reasons that centuries of Doctors, saints, and theologians were wrong in following St. Augustine about the fate of infants who die without Baptism. In that case, also, for about 800 years EVERYONE got it wrong, until the "heretical" Abelard came along and overturned this teaching. In the end, the Church sided with Abelard on this particular issue.

St. Augustine had a LOT of authority in the Middle Ages. In fact, it had been exaggerated to the point that the Church felt the need to condemn the proposition that the opinions of St. Augustine can be held even above and against the teaching of the Church. But there wasn't a lot written about BoD between the time of St. Augustine and then the early scholastics or pre-scholastics ... except a rejection thereof from St. Fulgentius, a disciple of St. Augustine.

What happened then was that Hugh of St. Victor and Abelard were feuding over BoD. Peter Lombard couldn't decided between these two opinions, so he wrote to St. Bernard. St. Bernard tentatively sided with the Augustinian opinion (as he saw it, since nobody was aware that St. Augustine had retracted it), saying that he'd rather be "wrong with Augustine" than right on his own. Peter Lombard then went with that. St. Thomas and other early scholastic theologians picked it up from there. And once St. Thomas had that opinion, it went viral, so to speak. But at no point has the theological note risen above that of an opinion of speculative theology. So it wasn't actually post-Trent but, rather, post-Aquinas.

You read the thread wrong Ladi, the writer SJ is saying that St. Thomas, St. Bernard, Alphonsus Ligouri taught salvation by belief in a God that rewards. He is not talking about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen.

Cantarella · « **Reply #123 on:** August 10, 2018, 11:47:34 AM »

Quote

But like I said, at last they did publish the ~~truth.~~

Madiran's personal critique to Des Laurier's sedevacantism (which perhaps is the only reason they decided to publish it without even offering an English translation).

JPaul · « **Reply #124 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:43:37 PM »

Quote from: Meg on August 10, 2018, 09:29:19 AM

Why is it necessary to mock Bp. Williamson? You must have a great deal of animosity towards him.

This discussion hinges around Mr. Johnson's defense of the Bishop's clearly stated position. Would you have it that we ignore what the Bishop has said? Anyway, the Bishop and the Archbishop hold to the same ideas as do many others, so no I do not have a great deal of animus for the Bishop, a great deal of confusion and disappointment, but not animus.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #125 on:** August 10, 2018, 01:48:32 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 10, 2018, 08:07:05 AM

Here is just one of many CI threads on BOD:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/on-the-feeneyite-heresy/

Many of the same Feeneyites in this thread participated in that 66 page thread.

Another 2 dozen threads could be found reproducing all the same arguments.

Just as I won’t beat my head against the brick wall of ignorance on the issue of the NOM again, and again, and again, so too with this issue.

Just revisit the linked thread.

If you want to be heretics, nobody can stop you (except Matthew, but he chooses not to).

Thank you for posting the above link. It’s one of the best “Feeneyite” threads with 47K+ viewings. In fact, it made a convert (to "Feeneyism") who entered the religious life at St. Benedict Center in NH after completing his collage education.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #126 on:** August 10, 2018, 02:03:04 PM »

That was: College.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #127 on:** August 10, 2018, 02:56:54 PM »

There is not one saint in the whole history of the Church that taught salvation in any other "religion", by their belief in a god that rewards, what the writer SJ erroneously just calls implicit desire. The only authority for that teaching is Vatican II, which curiously he rejects.

Struthio · « **Reply #128 on:** August 10, 2018, 03:11:04 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on August 10, 2018, 01:13:07 AM

Here's why: If they had started catechism class with teaching BoD from the very start, half the class or more might not have shown up for the second lesson.

So, poor catechumens had to endure until the 17th or so lesson.

JPaul · « **Reply #129 on:** August 10, 2018, 03:43:33 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 10, 2018, 10:16:31 AM

Now, back to supremely important question of the new mass...

I agree, the NO is evil. I agree, +W and +ABL do not promote the NO, yet neither do they condemn it 100%. If +W condemns it 12x but not the 13th, then his condemnation is not absolute. Anything which is evil, must be absolutely condemned. Therefore, the Bishop's lack of absolute condemnation is an error.

If the NO is evil, then ignorance does not change its evilness, it only affects the guilt of the individual. Yet, the evil/sinfullness of the NO still offends God. Just as Truth exists outside of ourselves, so does evil/untruth.

How can attending an evil, anti-catholic ceremony ever be spiritually profitable? How can an evil act be done for a "spiritual necessity"? This makes no sense.

I agree, the NO is intrinsically evil because it is a sin against the Faith, against the 1st commandment (and probably the 3rd). While I have no idea if those who attend a NO commit an intrinsically evil act, they do commit an evil act nonetheless, even if it is not intrinsic. The intrinsic nature of the act is irrelevant; it's still evil, since it's an uncatholic blasphemy.

The presence of a miracle in no way condones or makes virtuous the attendance at the NO. At certain black masses, the consecration is valid and a miracle takes place as well. The holiness of the mass is not entirely dependent upon the consecration; it is dependent upon the ENTIRE LITURGY, for the consecration is but a PART OF the mass.

Correct for while there might be a miracle present, there is also blasphemy and sacrilege. You cannot be partially loyal to our Lord,

Quote

"He who is not with Me, is against Me."

Matthew · « **Reply #130 on:** August 10, 2018, 04:00:15 PM »

Please take it to the BoD ghetto, set up for the purpose of all discussion of Feeneyism, BoB, BoD, implicit Faith, and all that.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/

I refuse to move an "Eleison Comments" to the Feeneyism subforum -- that would be ridiculous. So I'm just locking the thread instead. Go start however many threads you want in the APPROPRIATE location and by all means continue.

Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577) (Read 8948 times)

Ladislaus

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Pax Vobis

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Last Tradhican

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Cantarella

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

JPaul

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Last Tradhican

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Struthio

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

JPaul

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)

Matthew

Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)