In +W’s June 9 EC, entitled ominously, LIBERALS PREPARE His Excellency, admonishes “Capitulants” that the Church and Faith come first, and that “Menzingen may need to come off worst.” I interpret that to mean that Menzingen may have to change direction or, perhaps, not try so hard to curry Rome’s favor . So, does HE think Menzingen came off worst during the recent General Chapter?
Are we to take HE’s opening sentence in this latest EC to mean that Menzingen came off worst? He writes: “At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith.” ‘For the moment’ seems to lock in the next 12 years. Why is it such a “disguised defeat” when the five chosen leaders, (with perhaps the exception of the new SG, about whom most know little), have a proven track record. I would say that the defeat is pretty undisguised. And the Faith has clearly suffered by these appointments. Why can’t HE simply come out and state clearly the obvious? Why must he describe that defeat in such weak language. It ought to be fairly clear to all that the Society has not changed its course. In fact, the organization has doubled down.
Had they done their duty and refused this reorientation, the Resistance would not be such a dessert.:chef: sounds tasty!
In +W’s June 9 EC, entitled ominously, LIBERALS PREPARE His Excellency, admonishes “Capitulants” that the Church and Faith come first, and that “Menzingen may need to come off worst.” I interpret that to mean that Menzingen may have to change direction or, perhaps, not try so hard to curry Rome’s favor . So, does HE think Menzingen came off worst during the recent General Chapter?.
Are we to take HE’s opening sentence in this latest EC to mean that Menzingen came off worst? He writes: “At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith.” ‘For the moment’ seems to lock in the next 12 years. Why is it such a “disguised defeat” when the five chosen leaders, (with perhaps the exception of the new SG, about whom most know little), have a proven track record. I would say that the defeat is pretty undisguised. And the Faith has clearly suffered by these appointments. Why can’t HE simply come out and state clearly the obvious? Why must he describe that defeat in such weak language. It ought to be fairly clear to all that the Society has not changed its course. In fact, the organization has doubled down...
Another of HE’s pre-GC ECs, entitled VITAL ELECTION, and dated June 30. +W states:
“Therefore, divinely speaking, let nobody exclude the possibility of miraculous help from Heaven whereby the Society’s General Chapter will choose three top officials who understand what God wants from the Society, and mean with His help to give it to Him, namely the Society’s continuing or restored witness throughout the Church to the Social Kingship of Christ the King and to the one true religion instituted by the Incarnate God.”
Well, in plain, unequivocal English, can the bishop either affirm or deny that “three top officials” were chosen to lead the Society? Does he believe that the Society got “miraculous help from Heaven,” and that with this new leadership the Society now enjoys a fighting chance for a “restored witness?” I don’t think that it’s asking too much to inquire. In clear precise terms, can HE comment on the appointment of two additional advisors? Does he believe that these old relics of the SSPX can help bring about the restoration of the “Social Kingship of Christ the King?” Or, as many of us have probably concluded, does HE believe that these new appointments ensure the “disguised defeat” of any such restoration?
On Maria Duce's You Tube Channel, she has a recent sermon by Bishop Williamson discussing the SSPX General Chapter meeting. It is on the 2nd half of the sermon.Could I ask you to post a link to that sermon? I don't come with anything beyond July 7. And of course the GC did not convene until July 11. Maybe I missed it, but a simple link posting would be helpful.
Thanks for posting the video. The sermon given on the 9th Sunday after Pentecost, only a day after the GC closed on Sat. July 21. It took another week for the bishop to record initial reactions in an EC. They were not very illuminating, IMOYour comments are at once very astute and yet funny. What is one to make of all of this?
+W’s sermon was for me anti-climatic and disappointing. He is like a man sitting at the hospital bedside of a beloved spouse. She’s about to expire, and on life supports, hooked up to all kinds of tubes and wires. A monitor attached nearby shows a heart barely beating. At any moment the victim could flatline. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. A last ditch ‘Pagliarani’ treatment has begun, a new untried procedure that the man admits he knows scarcely anything about. It could, he concedes, result in severe ‘Fellay/Schmidberger’ infections. So the man hangs his head and sighs mournfully.
I hope that a General Chapter- III EC may produce a bit more than this. But I’m not betting the farm on it. Pagliarani was once almost a sedevacantist, then a “servant of the system,” now, who knows what. But, HE asserts weakly, Fr. P. is “possibly the best man to replace Fellay.”
“Providence has kept the Society alive in spite of Bp. Fellay,” says the good bishop. Well, Your Excellency, +Fellay hasn’t gone anywhere. He’s right there at Fr. P’s side, offering advice and counsel to the inner circle, along with his sidekick Fr. Schmidberger. I’m sure that Krah & Co.will be hovering about, as well. And how, btw, can anyone be certain that the Society is still alive?
It may be time to pull the plug. But HE can’t bring himself to do that. We understand. After all, he spent many years in marriage to her. Perfectly natural, I guess, to feel as he does. :(
It is a shame if the 40 leading priests of what was once Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society do not grasp the full dimension of the Church and world crisis in which we all find ourselves today, but that is the reality. In a way they are not to be blamed, because they are no more nor less than children of their age.In a way they are certainly to be blamed. If the priests of Christ cannot discern right from wrong, they have no business being priests. "children of their age"? Oh boy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp3I8TBwlrc
He speaks about the General Chapter around the 20 minute mark.
Bp. Williamson was, and still is, a cleric whom I deeply admire. So it is with some trepidation and reluctance that I dare, as a mere layman, to criticize him. But I cannot help but do so at this point. What i believe to be a tepid, somewhat toothless, reaction to the recently concluded GC is, for me, very troubling. To be willing to put money on a dark horse like Fr. Pagliarani, who in all likelihood will pull up lame before his course is even run, flies in the face of sound reason. +W, by doing this, infuses new life and energy into an organization which does not deserve it. The good bishop, seemingly, will not allow this fallen apostolate to die a natural death. He simply re-empowers the obviously fallen and corrupt forces of Fellay & Co. It is, IMO, a tragic shame. He should, IMO, help to serve as the organization's executioner, rather than its re-enabler.I did not quite realize the extent of how broken hearted the Bishop is over the Society's failure and how his hope of rejoining it, is slipping father away as time goes by. He will keep hoping for a miracle. As Matthew says he is one who looks for the best in people.
General Chapter – II
Great God, I can’t. I must.
You can. I beg. I trust!
At least for the moment one may reasonably judge that the General Chapter of the Society of St Pius X concluded in yet another disguised defeat for the Catholic Faith. It is a shame if the 40 leading priests of what was once Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society do not grasp the full dimension of the Church and world crisis in which we all find ourselves today, but that is the reality. In a way they are not to be blamed, because they are no more nor less than children of their age. Given that we are living in pre-apocalyptic times, why should Society priests have been spared the temptations and blindness which have, since Vatican II, brought low the mass of the Church’s bishops and priests? The Church has Our Lord’s promise that it will never fail (Mt. XXVIII, 20), but the Society never had any such promise.
Therefore let Catholics who wish to save their souls “get real”, as Americans say, or adjust their minds to the reality of our situation. For example, an anxious mother from the United States just wrote to me of her concern for her children:– “I want my children to have other children who love the faith. And I want other opportunities for them to meet faithful Catholics and maybe marry one-day. I have a son who is only 12 and would like to become a priest. What is the future for them? Will there ever be in our neck of the woods a “Resistance” priest? And how about a school? And will my son ever be safe entering a seminary?” There must be today many Catholic mothers with the same heartburn. I replied with the immense need that all Catholics have today to grasp reality and to adapt to it:–
Dear Mother,
GET USED TO THE IDEA THAT IN A FAMINE A CRUST OF BREAD IS A LUXURY . The Church is in a state of famine. Therefore –
1 Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof, says Our Lord (Sermon on the Mount). There may or may not be a decent Seminary by the time your 12-year old grows up. If there is not, that will mean that Our Lord did not mean for him to be a priest. But much water will go over the dam between now and then.
2 A priest from the “Resistance” in your neck of the woods? Time alone will tell. Meanwhile you are not obliged to attend Masses which diminish your faith, in fact you may be obliged not to attend them. Let you and your husband judge. But if you attend no public Mass, you must adore God at home in a regular way on Sunday. That is the Third Commandment. Yourexample will teach your children.
3 A “Resistance” school will be a super-luxury. Meanwhile children DOOOOO listen to their biological parents, it is deep in their nature. You can send them to schools not so good, as long as you have the Rosary at home, and watch carefully over all influences that can come to play on them, especially their music… Do n ot let them be alone in their rooms with any electronics. Keep these out of the home, as absolutely far as possible.
4 Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. Remember St Ambrose to St Monica — “The child of so many tears (the future St Augustine) cannot be lost.” Weep tears of blood if necessary for the salvation of each of your children – what else matters? – but at the same time have a boundless trust in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and in the desire and power of His Mother to obtain their salvation.
Therefore, dear readers, the Archbishop and his Society were a super-luxury. It is all too normal if today we lose it. We must “gird our loins”, i.e. tighten our belts, and reckon on saving our souls without it, if necessary. The grace of God is always there. “The help of God is closer than the door.”
Kyrie eleison.
I think in some respects Hollingsworth is hyper-critical of +W's response to the new superior general. But his criticisms of +W's leadership of the resistance (or lack thereof), or W+'s apparent pessimistic attitude towards the future, has some merit.
+W is very critical of the sspx and their friendliness with new-rome, yet he STILL will not come out against the errors of new-rome with any finality or clarity. He still wavers in regards to the new mass.
"Meanwhile you are not obliged to attend Masses which diminish your faith." Who defines what "diminishes my faith"? Just me? So is the Faith now a personal thing, divorced from objective facts and reality?
This is a purely subjective answer to an objective problem, which is the new mass. This is not clear teaching. This is why the sspx is in its current situation - because they fail to define new-rome's novelties as objective sins against God/Faith; instead the sspx views V2/new mass as "fixable" and circuмstantial "abuses". They don't call a spade a spade, and +W is still infected with this false mindset.
His hazy judgement of new-rome's sins obviously carries over to his leadership of the resistance, where his game plan for the future is also hazy. In this, I agree with Hollingsworth's concerns.
No, its a black/white proposal which errs by omitting the gray (i.e., explicit or implicit baptism of desire). Once again, the same problem: Doctrinal tunnel vision;I don't want to turn this into a BOD debate; i'd rather concentrate on the problems of the new mass, which are WAY more important. But, if you talk with any qualified and knowledgeable Feeneyite, they will admit that St Thomas and others believed in sanctification/justification for an explicit desire'er (i.e. a formal catechumen who's taking classes). Further, Trent says that JUSTIFICATION (i.e. sanctification) can be had in the same way (an explicit desire for baptism). No rational Feeneyite disagrees with this. ...The disagreement (or rather, theological question) is: Since the Church (and St Thomas et al are NOT the Church) has never taught what happens to a justified but unbaptized person if they die before baptism, can they gain heaven not having the indelible mark of the sacrament, or missing the sacramental wedding garment, can they obtain the beatific vision? Or, more likely, would they go to limbo, since they are in the state of grace like an unbaptized infant but not a member of the Church?
+ABL's reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish."And I reply that this it utter "situational ethics" garbage logic. As much as I admire +ABL, I must call him out on his lack of a theological foundation. He's basically saying that the novus ordo is "ok sometimes, but not all the time." He's saying it's ok to put oneself into an occasion of sin to one's faith (which is WAY worse than an impure occasion of sin, since sins against Faith are worse than sins against purity). He's ignoring the fact that the novus ordo is illicit, therefore sinful, that it is PROBABLY invalid, therefore sinful and it's atmosphere is scandalous, irreverent and sacrilegious, which is also sinful. What theological principles are his comments founded upon other than "the mass is (assumingly) valid"? His is faulty, erroneous, misguided theology!
The Novus Ordo Missae isonly "intrinsically evil" in the scholastic/philosophical sense (i.e., missing something proper to its integrity, like the offertory), but (at least for those in necessity or trapped in ignorance) not in the moral sense.Your moral philosophy is deeply flawed. Evil/sin is defined as "an offense against the law of God". The mass, being the highest and most perfect prayer, and being of DIVINE ORIGIN, means that God wants to be worshipped HIS WAY, since ONLY His way is perfect. If something is intrinsically evil (in any sense) then it is a sin. Ignorance does not erase sin; it does not erase the offense to God. It only mitigates the guilt. God is still offended and evil is still committed even if the person is 100% ignorant.
Then you must also conclude the Dialogue Mass is "immoral," since it too was contrived to usher in the new religion, well before V2.A liturgy is either moral or immoral based on what the missal says, no matter the intention of the author of the missal. A valid priest in the 1700s can make a perfect liturgy into an abomination in many ways. A valid priest in the 2000s could never make the novus ordo pleasing to God. The novus ordo is inherently flawed and sinful.
To be consistent, then, you must conclude none of the faithful may ever attend a dialogue Mass (i.e., because of its moral purpose).If there was a dialogue mass that was said by a valid priest, but which was notoriously and consistently immoral because of its deviation from the liturgical rubrics and/or any other scandalous and sacrilegious reason, then no one should attend, under pain of sin, for they would be knowingly participating in an irreligious and irreverent blasphemy. If it's only happened occasionally and the priest has been reprimanded, that's a different story. The point is, the problem is not the liturgy, but the atmosphere/priest. This must be decided on a case-by-case basis; unlike the novus ordo.
He acknowledges therein that repeated attendance will have dire consequences for the faith, while also having the common sense to acknowledge attendance at a single Mass will not.Name one moral scenario wherein we are allowed to do something "once" but not "multiple times". I can punch someone in the face once, just not 3x? I can cheat on my wife once, just not multiple times? I can lie in confession once, but more than that is bad? The logic makes no sense.
How anyone like Howlingsworth can come away from this EC proclaiming Bishop Williamson has placed his trust in the SSPX through the new SG, boggles the mind:
No need, You didn't.
I am not aware that I wrote any such thing. But if some of you believe that I did, then my apologies.
My only comment at this point is that when people start attacking a man of Lefebvre’s stature and doctrinal acuмen, I start checking out. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)So +ABL is infallible? We’re not discussing his doctrinal beliefs but his misapplication of theological principles to practical situations.
No need, You didn't.
So +ABL is infallible? We’re not discussing his doctrinal beliefs but his misapplication of theological principles to practical situations.
Secondly, I’ve questioned +ABL twice now and you answered the first time, but you won’t answer the second time? Is this like your stance on the new mass? You can go once, but not twice?
Can one go to the new mass once a week, or is that too much? Once a month? Every six weeks? If they go to different “priests” does the count go back to zero? Do weddings/funerals count as their “once a week”? What if i “don’t participate” - could I go everyday?
What if Mary FEELS that Fr Smith’s masses “help her Faith” but Sue FEELS the opposite? What if Sue FEELS that a charismatic “mass” helps her to FEEL closer to God? Who’s right? Does it matter? Are we to interpret the mass as +W and +ABL counseled, on a personal level? Is Catholicism/truth judged personally, and is it different for each individual?
Of course not! This is why +ABL and +W (and the entire SSPX) is wrong on the new mass. It’s why they will make a deal with Rome. It’s why the resistance is (seemingly) mired in theological mud, spinning their wheels, gaining no traction against Modernism because their stance against it is as firm as wet clay.
Yes, they are providing the sacraments, yes they are helping people have mass, but are they keeping alive THE FAITH? The Modernists figured out that they could get ”indult Trads” to trade their Faith for the mass, by giving them the indult in exchange for accepting a new faith from V2/new mass. Eventually, the Modernists can take away the indult because once the Faith has been corrupted, the “indult Trads” won’t notice.
If the resistance is following the same theological thinking as the neo-sspx, what’s to stop the resistance from making a deal with new-Rome? If the new mass can be attended “sometimes” then why shouldn’t the resistance go with Rome? What are they “resisting”? It’s quite hazy.
How do you know I've never been in the seminary? How do you know anything about me? You don't. So, quit dodging the questions I posed, quit distracting yourself from the debate, and refute the points I made, if you can.
Once again, I have no interest in debating anonymous, unqualified armchair quarterbacks who think they know better than Archbishop Lefebvre.Ha ha, then why are you even on this site? Go debate people in person, if they meet your elevated qualifications. Otherwise, this type of internet site is not for you.
If you want to prove to me that it is worth my time to engage you, please post your curriculum vitae, specifying why I would ever consider your unqualified opinion against the double-doctorate in theology and philosophy possessed by Lefebvre.I've never met anyone who dodges a debate as much as you. I posed some simple questions, so just answer them already.
If thousands of CI posts and a couple bookshelves are all you can muster, then I rest my case:If i'm so uneducated and unworthy of a debate, then my questions should be super easy to refute, since i'm a lowly simpleton and a half-wit, pretend theologian. Yet, the questions I posed are still there, waiting for you to demolish them.
You cannot offer any reason why I should consider your opinions worth consideration.
Conversely, I argue with Ladislaus all the time, because I know of his doctorate in ancient languages, teaching experience at the SSPX, partial seminary formation, and at least one published article. So why don’t you make the case for yourself?What's the case for why I should argue with you?
Without that, I see no reason to consider your opinion over that of the most prominent bishop in the last 100 years (and perhaps in the entire 2000 year history of the Church).+ABL was a contemporary of Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci, who were the HIGHEST theologians in rome, at the time. They denounced the new mass as 'uncatholic' and 'contrary to Trent'. It's not a complicated situation. And if +ABL goes contrary to these theological heavy-weights, he deserves to be corrected.
SJ: Who's attacking you?
Just pointing out what an idiot you make of yourself when you presume to correct your betters (without having the intellectual horsepower to do it).
SJ: Once again, I have no interest in debating anonymous, unqualified armchair quarterbacks who think they know better than Archbishop Lefebvre.
Without that, I see no reason to consider your opinion over that of the most prominent bishop in the last 100 years (and perhaps in the entire 2000 year history of the Church).Pax, you can rest your case. If this is not an over the top case of unrealistic hero worship, then we have never seen one....... :facepalm:
If you want to prove to me that it is worth my time to engage you, please post your curriculum vitae, specifying why I would ever consider your unqualified opinion against the double-doctorate in theology and philosophy possessed by Lefebvre.I would pose a reasonable question, if the Archbishop was as posited as almost theologically over qualified, then why did he not easily see the plain heresy and error in the docuмents of the council? Why did he sign all of these docuмents? Bishop Castro Myer did not sign them, and he was at least on Archbishop's theological level, and some say that he was the better of the two. He saw that it was not possible to sign these docuмents due to their objective content.
I would pose a reasonable question, if the Archbishop was as posited as almost theologically over qualified, then why did he not easily see the plain heresy and error in the docuмents of the council? Why did he sign all of these docuмents? Bishop Castro Myer did not sign them, and he was at least on Archbishop's theological level, and some say that he was the better of the two. He saw that it was not possible to sign these docuмents due to their objective content.
I think that you place to high a value upon academic qualifications and too little on those who can use the simple Catholic common sense that God gives to those who ask for it.
Anyway, what is the answer to this most important question?
Bishop Castro de Mayer signed the docuмents as well:My research does not agree with that, but that is secondary. Why did the Archbishop sign all of the docuмents, when on their face some of them were heretical and erroneous?
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX8.htm
My research does not agree with that, but that is secondary. Why did the Archbishop sign all of the docuмents, when on their face some of them were heretical and erroneous?
My research does not agree with that, but that is secondary. Why did the Archbishop sign all of the docuмents, when on their face some of them were heretical and erroneous?
It doesn't matter if Archbishop Lefebvre signed all docuмents. Let's bear in mind, hindsight is 20/20. It took time after the Council to see the rotten fruits of some of those docuмents. He couldn't fathom that those docuмents could be so problematic at the time of signing them. But again it doesn't matter because his whole apostolate after the Council militated against the reforms and theological problems flowing from the Council. At least give him some credit for being really the sole bishop to speak out AGAINST the Council.
How does one take a single piece of advice from Bishop Williamson in 2015 to make him out to be an advocate of the New Mass? His whole life and teaching -- among other things -- has shown that he is AGAINST the New Mass and its deviations from an orthodox understanding of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Publicly, his material has been available since 1985 when Bernard Janzen first interviewed him. Just look at all of his Rector's Letters and his sermons and doctrinal sessions to show that it is definitely not far to say he is some sort of advocate of the New Mass.
It doesn't matter if Archbishop Lefebvre signed all docuмents. Let's bear in mind, hindsight is 20/20. It took time after the Council to see the rotten fruits of some of those docuмents. He couldn't fathom that those docuмents could be so problematic at the time of signing them. But again it doesn't matter because his whole apostolate after the Council militated against the reforms and theological problems flowing from the Council. At least give him some credit for being really the sole bishop to speak out AGAINST the Council.*not fair to say
How does one take a single piece of advice from Bishop Williamson in 2015 to make him out to be an advocate of the New Mass? His whole life and teaching -- among other things -- has shown that he is AGAINST the New Mass and its deviations from an orthodox understanding of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Publicly, his material has been available since 1985 when Bernard Janzen first interviewed him. Just look at all of his Rector's Letters and his sermons and doctrinal sessions to show that it is definitely not far to say he is some sort of advocate of the New Mass.
Yet more diversion and sidestepping, Why did the Archbishop sign the docuмents if he was so theologically astute?
And yes it does indeed matter whether or not he signed them.
Yet more diversion and sidestepping, Why did the Archbishop sign the docuмents if he was so theologically astute?
And yes it does indeed matter whether or not he signed them.
How so? I think there were a handful of bishops who didn't sign some of the docuмents. Can you even name them? What did they do? My point still stands. You are looking back 50 years and implying (I think) that he lacked judgment because he signed the docuмents. What exactly are you trying to say then?
Precisely, while those who did not sign them completely capitulated to conciliarism.I wouldn't call him an idiot but I am not sure what he is trying to prove.
JPaul is an idiot.
Worse: An idiot with an agenda.
Precisely, while those who did not sign them completely capitulated to conciliarism.Right. But then he would probably say Bishop Williamson is capitulating to conciliarism. (Perhaps that is what he is trying to prove?)
JPaul is an idiot.
Worse: An idiot with an agenda.
I wouldn't call him an idiot but I am not sure what he is trying to prove.
Right. But then he would probably say Bishop Williamson is capitulating to conciliarism. (Perhaps that is what he is trying to prove?)
No.I just don't understand that while the need is for men to do something constructive for a restoration (within each of our means) we have people who are nitpicking on things which needn't be criticized when taken from a higher view. No wonder nothing gets done!
Matthew already pegged him perfectly.
He's an amateur complainer.
Grumpy Smurf.
Stands for nothing, and opposes everything.
Probably a communist ;D
I just don't understand that while the need is for men to do something constructive for a restoration (within each of our means) we have people who are nitpicking on things which needn't be criticized when taken from a higher view. No wonder nothing gets done!
Signing the docuмents may have been a mistake, but it was also a matter of legal formality. V2 was unlike any other ecuмenical council in the way that it was administered, voted upon and implemented. V2 was a disorganized media circus. I’ll cut +ABL a lot of slack here.See this post on the Novus Ordo: https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/t49605/msg621879/#msg621879
Let’s get back to the important topic, the new mass...
Without that, I see no reason to consider your opinion over that of the most prominent bishop in the last 100 years (and perhaps in the entire 2000 year history of the Church).
JPaul is an idiot. (insert anyone else who disagrees with him):laugh1:
Worse: An idiot with an agenda.
SJ:You can pretty much guarantee that JPaul will spend his whole life sulking, without ever having made a positive contribution to the Church..
Sean excuses people for accepting the Modernists' new mass, while at the same time criticizing +Fellay's neo-sspx for negotiating with the Modernists. ? ? ?
The confusion of modern man knows no bounds.
This is interesting. JPaul makes no "positive contribution to the Church." But SJ, by contrast, must think he makes enormous(?) positive contributions to the Church. Just what are they? I'm willing to listen to SJ explain to us what exactly they are. We need to listen to folks who help the Church be better.
I think it's been 8 or 9 posts by Sean and he still is dodging my questions. He spends most of his time hurling adolescent insults at those who disagree with him. So sad.
Sean, I'll summarize my questions, to make it simple for you:
1. If the top theologians in rome (Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc) said that the new mass (in it's "perfect form" mind you) was 'anti-Trent in theology' and 'positively doubtful' in validity, what theological reasons exist which supercede the above two MAJOR problems and allow us to go?
2. The 1st commandment is greater than the 3rd, for we must recognize God's omnipotence before we can rightly worship him. If the new mass is SYSTEMATICALLY irreverent, blasphemous and anti-catholic (and it is), which atmoshere is highly sinful, then how can one attend it, using the exuse of "fulfilling one's sunday obligation"? How can one fulfill the 3rd commandment (to honor God on Sundays) while at the same time sinning against the 1st commandment (attending a blasphemous/sacrilegious fake mass)? How can you honor God by attending a dishonorable mass?
.
Is it really that +BW is “hazy,” “lacks clarity,” and “won’t act with finality?”
.
How can someone who claims to be so academically accomplished manage to use quotation marks around three phrases that the so-called quoted writer did not literally use? Are you unaware of what quotation marks signify? Or do you prefer to discredit yourself with sloppy scholarship?
Pax Vobis makes all three of those accusations in his 1st post on p. 2 of this thread:.
“+W is very critical of the sspx and their friendliness with new-rome, yet he STILL will not come out against the errors of new-rome with any finality or clarity...his game plan for the future is also hazy. In this, I agree with Hollingsworth's concerns.
So essentially, you are citing Archbishop Lefebvre as a refutation of...Archbishop Lefebvre.Ok, so +ABL contradicts himself and is theologically schizophrenic.
2. You may find a complete explanation in The Catechetical Refutation (of which I have retracted nothing, and may add much to a future edition).A complete non-answer. At this point, i'll assume it's a dodge.
In summary, your linear doctrinal tunnel vision causes you MANY distortions (either by oversimplification, corrupt syllogisms, or excessive conclusions).
.
You put quotation marks around phrases he did not literally use.
This is further evidence you don't mind playing fast and loose with details. Just sayin'...
Ok, so +ABL contradicts himself and is theologically schizophrenic.
You still haven't explained why there is no contradiction between +ABL's words and "his study", you've just dodged the question yet again.
A complete non-answer. At this point, i'll assume it's a dodge.
What is this Refutation you're talking about? The intellectual peasant that I am, I assume i've not heard of it because I'm not in the mensa club or something?
If you're so smart, why can't you summarize your refutation into a few simple sentences that we can all understand?
If all of your views are written perfectly on some blog, why are you on this site to begin with? Any posts you make here are surely a waste of your time.
Dodge #11.
Dodge #11.Pax,.................Seraphim the Superior will not yield to you, not when he has the most important Bishop in the 2000 year history of the Church on his side.............. :laugh1:
THESE post surely are.I'm assuming Neil's position on this one.
I'm assuming Neil's position on this one.
It should be: THESE posts surely are.
That is all.
Pax,.................Seraphim the Superior will not yield to you, not when he has the most important Bishop in the 2000 year history of the Church on his side.............. :laugh1:
You have performed a major service to the Church by....catching a typo.
Good boy.
In a matter of a few pages, you've extolled the scholasticism of your voluminous writings, referred all of us to read your "refutation" because it's "well known" (i've never heard of it or you), and you've denigrated all those who disagree with you as being uneducated and not worth your time. Yet you continue to post on this site? Oh, the irony.
With each continued dodge, you further erode your own integrity.
You have performed a major service to the Church by....catching a typo.I stated my intention, namely, to step in for Neil to be of service to you, so that you try to avoid making the same mistake again - that was all.
Good boy.
More of the same B&W, either/or tunnel vision, lacking all ability to nuance and distinguish, which has mired you in hopeless error.
Any chance you are a Feeneyite or sede? If you aren’t yet, you will be one day.
I really need do nothing to refute you besides point out this mental handicap in each successive post.
Ps: As regards Howlingsworth, he’s just a grumpy old codger, doing what grumpy old codgers do.
PS: As regards Howlingsworth, he’s just a grumpy old codger, doing what grumpy old codgers do.
No matter what anyone thinks of Holly, he's in the "SSPX Resistance Hall of Fame"
This old codger...stood-up to, and backed-down Fr. Rostand in front of hundreds of his neo-trad groupies.
(https://dmaeducatorblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/langmorecowboy2.jpg)
Old codger photo (not actually Holly)
That took some fortitude and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
I stated my intention, namely, to step in for Neil to be of service to you, so that you try to avoid making the same mistake again - that was all.
How on earth could even a nitwit, much less someone so great and full of knowledge as yourself, think *that* is a service to the Church? - unless you think that you are the Church.
You most certainly do not take correction well at all. Remember to add that to your resume.
+ABL said: "Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith.“I believe in God...” is the first article of the Creed. Therefore, one could argue (as do V2 Modernists) that explicit faith in God (any God...Judaic, Hindu, Muslim, etc) suffices for BOD. There’s not much difference between +ABL’s BOD and Rahner’s. Both are contrary to St Thomas’ BOD parameters.
Sean,
Please confirm if you really believe this statement, because what's being expressed here is some sort of magic. Not the Sacrament of Baptism.
If you, Bp. Williamson and any other resistance trad honestly buy this, then there's no need for you to be resisting Bp. Fellay, the neo-SSPX or Francis.
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."
A simple (but major difference) between St Thomas and +ABL is that St Thomas and St Alphonsus speak of BOD providing “forgiveness of sin” and not the baptismal character. +ABL erroneously goes one step further and presumes salvation, even in a false religion.
As Trent taught, justification/state of grace can be had with a desire for baptism (which desire we must presume to be EXPLICIT not implicit. Trent says that Baptism (which is a public act) “or the desire thereof” (this presumes the desire must also be public/explicit, ie in the case of a formal catechumen)). +ABL falsely makes the illogical leap that one who is justified will go to heaven. Neither St Thomas nor Trent taught this. This last step, between justification and actual baptism, has never been defined by the Church.
1. Neither Ottaviani nor Bacci wrote the Brief Critical Study. They only signed it. The study itself was written by Gérard des Lauriers, and the head of the committee overseeing the whole project was...Archbishop Lefebvre.
Your Excellency, in order to save the Mass that is the Mass, you put it on par with the “new mass,” in the name of the Religion that you profess. How can you imagine that, instructed by your example, those unstable and weak people who follow you rather than the Truth could restore the sense of the true Religion in a Church occupied by the “high priests” of the god of the Universe? One cannot sit at the same table with Satan. It is Hell that is paved with these good intentions that justify the means by their end, perpetrating a manifest evil under the illusion of doing a good.
Sean,
Please confirm if you really believe this statement, because what's being expressed here is some sort of magic. Not the Sacrament of Baptism.
If you, Bp. Williamson and any other resistance trad honestly buy this, then there's no need for you to be resisting Bp. Fellay, the neo-SSPX or Francis.
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."
Mons. Guerard des Lauriers was not very pleased with the approach that Archbishop Lefebvre had taken respect the New Mass and his persistent ambivalence towards new Rome, as it is evident from the letter he wrote to His Excellency which can be read here (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm), in which the good Archbishop is even compared to Pontius Pilate.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
There must have been a bunch of "Feeneyites" in Africa, teaching catechumens about the absolute necessity of baptism..
The Council of Trent ("cuм hoc tempore") forbids to teach, preach, and believe anything on justification other than taught by the same Council. The Council of Trent does explain in detail, when and how the sanctifying grace of baptism is received. It's not before actual baptism.
Oh yeah, almost forgot:St. Alphonsus does not say what this "implicit - ness" requires in that quote, the writer SJ does, it is just his personal opinion, not St. Thomas's of St. Alphonsus's. Vatican II and Rahner do the same.
Saint Thomas taught the implicit baptism of desire in Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, A. 4.
Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96:
There must have been a bunch of "Feeneyites" in Africa, teaching catechumens about the absolute necessity of baptism.I lived in East Africa in the 1950s and 1960s. The Holy Ghost Fathers (Irish) were prominent there and I reckon that they were the source of the catechism books.
The Council of Trent ("cuм hoc tempore") forbids to teach, preach, and believe anything on justification other than taught by the same Council. The Council of Trent does explain in detail, when and how the sanctifying grace of baptism is received. It's not before actual baptism.
St. Alphonsus does not say what this "implicit - ness" requires in that quote, the writer SJ does, it is just his personal opinion, not St. Thomas's of St. Alphonsus's. Vatican II and Rahner do the same.
Since the writer SJ defends the dogmatically defined at Vatican II teaching that anyone can be saved by their belief in a god (Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans .....) that rewards, I ask, if he would please remind me again why he objects to Vatican II?
St Thomas says:Summarization of what St Thomas thinks:
As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues.
+ABL says:Summarization:
"Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit, while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit, since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole...In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit, since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence."
+ABL said:
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it."
Rahner (and +ABL's 2nd quote) posited one could be saved by a faith completely implicit, with no explicit act of supernatural faith in even one single aspect of the true religion.
Sean,
Please confirm if you really believe this statement, because what's being expressed here is some sort of magic. Not the Sacrament of Baptism.
If you, Bp. Williamson and any other resistance trad honestly buy this, then there's no need for you to be resisting Bp. Fellay, the neo-SSPX or Francis.
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."
“I believe in God...” is the first article of the Creed. Therefore, one could argue (as do V2 Modernists) that explicit faith in God (any God...Judaic, Hindu, Muslim, etc) suffices for BOD. There’s not much difference between +ABL’s BOD and Rahner’s. Both are contrary to St Thomas’ BOD parameters.Sean, after reading the post you wrote (the one Pax Vobis is responding to here) I wondered what would be examples of articles of faith. It seems PV answers my question with the article "I believe in God".
Summarization of what St Thomas thinks:
1. An implicit or explicit desire for Baptism can lead to a "forgiveness of sin".
2. Such a desire must be "FOR BAPTISM" specifically.
3. Such a forgiveness does not remit all temporal punishment, since an actual reception of the sacrament remits the "entire punishment".
4. Such forgiveness of sin happens through their "FAITH IN CHRIST".
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? St Thomas does not say they attain heaven; only that they are in the state of grace.
Summarization:
1. +ABL doesn't mention the effects of BOD, in regards to forgiveness of sin.
2. Desire for Baptism must be specific.
3. Doesn't talk about temporal punishment.
4. Reception of BOD happens, not through Faith in Christ, but only faith through "some article" of Faith.
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? Not specifically stated.
Comment:
The necessity of "Faith in Christ", as St Thomas taught, is much more specific than +ABL's mere "faith in some article of faith".
Summarization:
1. No mention of forgiveness of sins.
2. No desire for baptism is required.
3. Doesn't talk about temporal punishment.
4. Reception of BOD happens, not through Faith in Christ, not even through faith of "some article" of faith, but *magically* without them even knowing it (or, wanting it?).
5. What happens to a person who dies after BOD but before actual Baptism? They are saved, since they are *unknowingly* part of the Church. So, we can say they are *unknowingly* saved.
Comment:
The preposterous idea that a non-catholic can *unknowingly* receive BOD, without desiring it, or ANY part of the Faith, is a heresy, pure and simple. +ABL, hopefully pled "temporary insanity" on this part of his life. I'll pray for him.
His ideas here are not even CLOSE to what St Thomas required, and not even close to what he said himself in the 1st quote. Both of these quotes are TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY.
Oh St. Romanus, who's feast-day is August 9th, please enlighten us:
You, who were miraculously converted on the sight of St. Lawrence's tortures...
You, who were of "good will", with strong "desire" to be Catholic and who would shed your "martyr's blood"...
Why didst thou still beg for water Baptism ?
(https://www.catholic.org/files/images/saints/4634.jpg)
St Romanus 258, begged St. Lawrence,
while in jail to Baptize him. He was beheaded
the day before St. Lawrence's martyrdom.
Here is just one of many CI threads on BOD:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/on-the-feeneyite-heresy/ (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).
Notice that the writer SJ does not answer any of the questions. It he who relies on his own opinion of what St. Alphonsus Luigouri's meant by implicit.
Don’t you and all the rest of the Feeneyites sense somewhere that, if you are forced to come up with arguments like this, it indicates you have missed (or rejected, like a proud heretic?) something?
Could it be that through lack of humility (ie, recognizing the subject matter is beyond your comprehension and being ok with that), you are becoming obstinate in error?
More specifically, if you have to resort to relying on Alphonsus’ “not saying what implicitness is” to hold your position together (obviously, implicit is the opposite of explicit; unconscious), it indicates you yourself are in doubt about the position you are defending (ie, no reasonable person would have confidence in such a weak, contrived defense).
Doesn’t it slow you down to realize ABL opposes Lumen Gentium and Rahner’s heretical theory (or that I do)?
Or will pride make you say, “Well Lefebvre must not have been aware that by making that statement [perfectly supported by St Thomas!], he was contradicting himself?
Pride, theological tunnel vision (a la Anglo B&W inability to nuance), and obstinacy are the spiritual legacy which Feeney has bequeathed to his progeny.
(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)These folks will probably throw in the conciliar Popes as being mushminded invincibles.............. :facepalm:
Last Tradican,
I think that that about sums it up. This foolish belief in people being saved invisibly and directly against the dogmatic teaching of the Church is in fact the underlying theology of Universal Salvation.
This is the belief of the greatest Bishop in the two thousand year history of the Church.
What then is the purpose of the Church?
Just as you made up the idea that Trent considered only explicit desireFirst off, you're putting words in my mouth. Trent is not clear on the explicit vs implicit, so it's open for debate. I'm just making an argument. Trent says that justification (i.e. sanctifying grace) is obtained by baptism or the desire thereof. Since baptism is a public profession of Faith and a public initiation into the Church (it's public because the Church requires Godparents/witnesses), therefore, it is logical to say that the desire for baptism must also be public or explicit (i.e. in the case of a catechumen).
You say St Thomas allows allows for implicit baptism of desire (Very good!).Again, you misquote me, because you misunderstand the use of the word 'specific' and think it means the same as 'explicit'. It does not. I did not say that the desire for baptism must be explicit; I said baptism must be desired SPECIFICALLY. One can have a specific yet an implicit desire.
But then you follow with the contradiction:
The implicit desire for baptism must be explicit 😏.
Why is it necessary to mock Bp. Williamson? You must have a great deal of animosity towards him.I know you were not referring to me, that I said nothing about Bp. Williamson, I was just responding to a quote by the writer SJ. I have not read anything on this thread except the SJ quote that I responded to. Maybe you have followed the entire thread? If so, where did the salvation for all other "religions" start and where was animosity showed to Bp. Williamson?
I know you were not referring to me, that I said nothing about Bp. Williamson, I was just responding to a quote by the writer SJ. I have not read anything on this thread except the SJ quote that I responded to. Maybe you have followed the entire thread? If so, where did the salvation for all other "religions" start.
It's possible that JPaul was referring to +ABL rather than Bp. Williamson - if so then that's my mistake.Yes, Meg, once again you lazily inject yourself into the middle of a thread, which causes you to misunderstand references to previous pages.
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.
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!
– Ignorance as an exceptional cause for attendance at the New Mass applies only to Conciliar Catholics, not Traditionalists
– 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.)
– 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
– 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).
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.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.
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.
But like I said, at last they did publish thetruth.
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.
Here is just one of many CI threads on BOD:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/on-the-feeneyite-heresy/ (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).
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.
Now, back to supremely important question of the new mass...Correct for while there might be a miracle present, there is also blasphemy and sacrilege. You cannot be partially loyal to our Lord,
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.
"He who is not with Me, is against Me."