Author Topic: POPES FALLIBLE (Read 13448 times)

Adolphus · « **Reply #30 on:** September 15, 2014, 08:38:48 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: clare
Quote from: Adolphus
That is exactly my objection: the original sin is contracted at the conception and not from birth. That is how the Council of Trento defined it and that is how every Catholic has to believe.

Saying that we have a nature seriously wounded from birth rather that from conception is an error, no matter who says so.

I think you're being pedantic, like those Protestants who maintain that Our Lady knew St Joseph after the birth of Our Lord as the Bible says she didn't know him "until" then.

I think you're being overly generous. He's being much worse than pedantic, because he knows full well that "human nature" is a meaningless trope until birth, at the very soonest. Unborn children are, of course, ipso facto innocent of even the potential for sin. That original sin bars them from heaven is a weighty matter, certainly; but it is a matter whose understanding or analysis lies far, far above man's pay grade.

In short, Adolphus is taking a nasty, spiteful swipe at a man whose boots he isn't worthy to clean. He doesn't like +Williamson's utterly orthodox, utterly Catholic thinking, and so he strikes out like an unlettered pagan savage.

Do you really know how people has interpreted His Excellency words? Some blogs in which the EC are usually published, have changed the words to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, since several readers have complained about them.

No matter how pedantic you may think I am; no matter how much you like Bp. Williamson and how much you think I dislike him, what His Excellency wrote is a mistake, is an unfortunate expression which should be emended.

Adolphus · « **Reply #31 on:** September 15, 2014, 08:42:01 PM »

Quote from: claudel

In short, Adolphus is taking a nasty, spiteful swipe at a man whose boots he isn't worthy to clean. He doesn't like +Williamson's utterly orthodox, utterly Catholic thinking, and so he strikes out like an unlettered pagan savage.

I have never seen Bp. Williamson wearing boots… but I agree with you: I am not worthy to clean his shoes... nor yours.

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #32 on:** September 15, 2014, 09:13:35 PM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: claudel

In short, Adolphus is taking a nasty, spiteful swipe at a man whose boots he isn't worthy to clean. He doesn't like +Williamson's utterly orthodox, utterly Catholic thinking, and so he strikes out like an unlettered pagan savage.

I have never seen Bp. Williamson wearing boots… but I agree with you: I am not worthy to clean his shoes... nor yours.

That's OK, Lepanto guy up there is even less worthy..."twisted"..."false doctrine"...It seems this EC went clear over his head. That can be upsetting.

Adolphus · « **Reply #33 on:** September 15, 2014, 11:19:49 PM »

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

Quote from: Adolphus
Quote from: claudel

In short, Adolphus is taking a nasty, spiteful swipe at a man whose boots he isn't worthy to clean. He doesn't like +Williamson's utterly orthodox, utterly Catholic thinking, and so he strikes out like an unlettered pagan savage.

I have never seen Bp. Williamson wearing boots… but I agree with you: I am not worthy to clean his shoes... nor yours.
That's OK, Lepanto guy up there is even less worthy..."twisted"..."false doctrine"...It seems this EC went clear over his head. That can be upsetting.

I don't know: I am nobody to judge him.

However, after seeing your reaction, it seems that it was Lepanto's comment the one went clear over your head. That could be upsetting…

After all, Lepanto comments an important point:

Quote

[Bp.] Williamson is speaking about the "manuals" or what use to be called "pamphlets" the Bishops of the first Vatican Council wrote in "Pastoral Letters" to the faithful.

His Excellency said:

Quote

Those manuals are marvellous in their way, but they were all written before Vatican II, and they tended to attach to the Pope an infallibility which belongs to the Church.

So, how is that to be interpreted? Should we read instead the manuals that were written after vatican ii? Or maybe we have to follow Bp. Williamson's interpretation?

What His Excellency wrote in this (and other) Eleison Comment regarding sedevacantism is wrong:

Sedevacantism is not based on infallibility. Sedevacantists do not deny Francis is pope because he has failed and popes do not fail. No, that is not the way sedevacantists think: sedevacantists say Francis is not pope because he is not Catholic, because he is not a member of the Church, because when he fell in heresy or when he apostatized he ceased to be a member of the Church.

Besides, sedevacantists and liberals are not mutually exclusive, since there could be sedevacantists who are liberals and liberals who are sedevacantists.

His Excellency's approach is totally wrong…

roscoe · « **Reply #34 on:** September 15, 2014, 11:27:36 PM »

From the perspective of a historian it is enough to know that the the anti-pope Frank is not legally elected. :reporter:

Adolphus · « **Reply #35 on:** September 16, 2014, 12:51:45 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

On the subject of Sedevacantism, +Williamson's thinking is anything but "utterly orthodox, utterly Catholic".

Unfortunately, sedevacantism is not only the subject on which Bp. Williamson's thinking has not been orthodox, utterly Catholic…

He is not very orthodox nor utterly Catholic when he recommends Maria Valtorta's book, which was banned by the Holy Office and endorsed by the Card. [then father] Bea and refused by Abp. Lefebvre.

He was not very orthodox nor utterly Catholic when he supported the "insult" (or indult) mass nor when he supported and welcomed the motu proprio Summorum pontificuм.

And the list could continue…

clare · « **Reply #36 on:** September 16, 2014, 03:44:17 AM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: clare
Quote from: Adolphus
...
Saying that we have a nature seriously wounded from birth rather that from conception is an error, no matter who says so.

I think you're being pedantic, like those Protestants who maintain that Our Lady knew St Joseph after the birth of Our Lord as the Bible says she didn't know him "until" then.

There is huge difference between the argument given by the protestants and His Excellency's lapsus, because the protestant argument is the result of a wrong interpretation and a translation issue.

There are several examples in the Bible that show such issue which is caused for the impossibility to translate into English some expressions as they were written in the Bible. Thus, (and this is just one example among others) one can read in the second book of Samuel that a certain woman had no child until the day of her death. Does that mean that such woman had no child while she was alive, but then had children once she died?...
...

John 9:1
"And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth..."

Could the man see before he was born then?

Also, I have a fusion of a couple of bones in my arm meaning I can't turn my hand palm-upwards. This condition is congenital, i.e. I've had it from birth; and I assume I had it before birth too. I doubt the bones fused at the moment of birth!

Charlotte NC Bill · « **Reply #37 on:** September 16, 2014, 07:08:06 AM »

Clare makes a good point but it won't be appreciated by those that will dance on the head of a pin to backbite Williamson...
This thread wasn't over my head but it's definitely beyond my patience.
We have people here whose understanding of Papal infallibility borders on papalotry ( papal idolatry ) accusing Bp.Williamson of being a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist...
When St. Peter was wrong about the Judaizing of converts St. Paul recognized and resisted him "to his face". Was he wrong to do so?
Was St. Athanasius wrong to recognize and resist a pope that had succuмbed to Arianism?
Was Archbp. Lefebvre wrong to recognize and resist the Conciliar Popes?
I would submit that these saints were right and some of our cathinfo theologians are wrong on this one.

claudel · « **Reply #38 on:** September 16, 2014, 07:32:21 AM »

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

Clare makes a good point but it won't be appreciated by those that will dance on the head of a pin to backbite Williamson …

… I would submit that these saints were right and some of our cathinfo theologians are wrong on this one.

Seconded throughout, with especially marked agreement for "[not] over my head but it's definitely beyond my patience."

The mob of roll-your-own-religion theologians infesting this thread serves one important purpose: to demonstrate yet again the wisdom of an old maxim—many a self-taught man has had a fool for a teacher.

The worst aspect of the crisis of the Faith we are suffering through is the near-total loss of sound catechesis. And a clear majority of CI commenters think that situation is just dandy.

ggreg · « **Reply #39 on:** September 16, 2014, 08:06:45 AM »

So who taught old Maxim?

claudel · « **Reply #40 on:** September 16, 2014, 08:51:47 AM »

Quote from: Lepanto Again

Are you saying these things of your own accord? After studying the issue? Or has somebody done the thinking for you?

Obviously I purchased my thinking from Amazon, using a CathInfo link to help Matthew out. What's your story?

Quote from: Lepanto Again

Williamson is speaking about the "manuals" or what use to be called "pamphlets" the Bishops of the first Vatican Council wrote in "Pastoral Letters" to the faithful.

He's doing nothing of the sort. Pamphlets are not manuals, nor are manuals pamphlets. +RW is plainly referring to the standard manuals of theology—Jone, perhaps Slater or Davis for the Brits—that every priest in the first six decades of the twentieth century learned his theology from during his years in the seminary.

Quote from: Lepanto Again

Don't tell my wife and I we are wrong until you have searched out Bishops like Archbishop Lynch of Toronto, ON or Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore, MD. And any other English speaking Bishop who wrote a Pastoral Letter on the Infallibility of the Pope.

I wasn't aware that I was addressing your wife, too. Are your grandkids there cheering for you as well and sticking out their tongues in my general direction?

claudel · « **Reply #41 on:** September 16, 2014, 09:00:52 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

So who taught old Maxim?

Professor Apothegm Gnome Brocard, of Aphorism University, located in Axiom Epigram, a college town in Andorra.

Adolphus · « **Reply #42 on:** September 16, 2014, 10:27:40 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: Adolphus
Quote from: clare
Quote from: Adolphus
...
Saying that we have a nature seriously wounded from birth rather that from conception is an error, no matter who says so.

I think you're being pedantic, like those Protestants who maintain that Our Lady knew St Joseph after the birth of Our Lord as the Bible says she didn't know him "until" then.

There is huge difference between the argument given by the protestants and His Excellency's lapsus, because the protestant argument is the result of a wrong interpretation and a translation issue.

There are several examples in the Bible that show such issue which is caused for the impossibility to translate into English some expressions as they were written in the Bible. Thus, (and this is just one example among others) one can read in the second book of Samuel that a certain woman had no child until the day of her death. Does that mean that such woman had no child while she was alive, but then had children once she died?...
...

John 9:1
"And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth..."

Could the man see before he was born then?

You tell me. Could he? Could you see before you were born?

Certainly, it wouldn't have made sense to say he was blind from conception, since nobody can see at the moment of conception.

Quote from: clare

Also, I have a fusion of a couple of bones in my arm meaning I can't turn my hand palm-upwards. This condition is congenital, i.e. I've had it from birth; and I assume I had it before birth too. I doubt the bones fused at the moment of birth!

I am sorry to read about that, but for sure the bones were not fused at conception, since there were not bones then.

Adolphus · « **Reply #43 on:** September 16, 2014, 10:38:02 AM »

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

Clare makes a good point but it won't be appreciated by those that will dance on the head of a pin to backbite Williamson...
This thread wasn't over my head but it's definitely beyond my patience.
We have people here whose understanding of Papal infallibility borders on papalotry ( papal idolatry ) accusing Bp.Williamson of being a sedevacantist or a sedeprivationist...
When St. Peter was wrong about the Judaizing of converts St. Paul recognized and resisted him "to his face". Was he wrong to do so?
Was St. Athanasius wrong to recognize and resist a pope that had succuмbed to Arianism?
Was Archbp. Lefebvre wrong to recognize and resist the Conciliar Popes?
I would submit that these saints were right and some of our cathinfo theologians are wrong on this one.

Nobody should appreciate the defense of a mistake.

Bp. Williamson made a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes, what is the deal?

The difference is that the mistakes made by Bp. Williamson are seen by hundreds or thousands of persons and some of them may be mislead for such mistakes.

No one is accusing him of being heretic. I just suggested that it would have been better that he corrected his mistake instead of writing against sedevcantism, because what he wrote against sedevacantism is wrong.

Sedevacantism may be wrong, since it is just an opinion. But the arguments provided by His Excellency and even his approach are wrong.

clare · « **Reply #44 on:** September 16, 2014, 11:22:47 AM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: clare
Also, I have a fusion of a couple of bones in my arm meaning I can't turn my hand palm-upwards. This condition is congenital, i.e. I've had it from birth; and I assume I had it before birth too. I doubt the bones fused at the moment of birth!

I am sorry to read about that, but for sure the bones were not fused at conception, since there were not bones then.

They were fused at some stage before I was born, therefore, strictly speaking, it is erroneous to say they were fused from birth.

(Incidentally, it's not a huge problem, except I also can't touch my right shoulder with my right hand, so I can't make the Sign of the Cross properly!)