Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9

Author Topic: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)  (Read 8971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12168
  • Reputation: +7684/-2345
  • Gender: Male
Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2018, 10:48:37 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote
    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.
    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) are wrong on the new mass.  It’s why the sspx 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 (+W) is following the same theological thinking as the sspx (+ABL) and the neo-sspx (+Fellay’s logical conclusions from +ABL’s stance), 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.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #31 on: August 07, 2018, 10:49:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: JPaul on August 07, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
    No need, You didn't.

    Need; you did:

    Howlingsworth:

    "To be willing to put money on a dark horse like Fr. Pagliarani...The good bishop, seemingly, will not allow this fallen apostolate to die a natural death. 
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #32 on: August 07, 2018, 10:51:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2018, 10:48:37 PM
    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.

    You miss the point:

    Listening to you (i.e., an armchair nobody without a single day in the seminary) "correct" the Archbishop (who holds double doctorates from an era when that was still worth something) is like watching my garbage man give medical advice to a doctor because he read something on the internet.

    Thanks anyway.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12168
    • Reputation: +7684/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #33 on: August 08, 2018, 08:49:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #34 on: August 08, 2018, 09:44:41 AM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!7
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2018, 08:49:51 AM
    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.

    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.

    If thousands of CI posts and a couple bookshelves are all you can muster, then I rest my case:

    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?

    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).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12168
    • Reputation: +7684/-2345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #35 on: August 08, 2018, 10:51:01 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote
    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. 

    Quote
    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. 

    Quote
    If thousands of CI posts and a couple bookshelves are all you can muster, then I rest my case:
    You cannot offer any reason why I should consider your opinions worth consideration.
    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. 

    Quote
    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? 

    Quote
    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.
    Logged

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +2932/-517
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #36 on: August 08, 2018, 11:48:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


    • Quote
    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). 


     
    You have to understand, PV, that this is not a personal attack. You may speak like an idiot. That doesn’t make you an idiot. LOL. :D

     

    Quote
    SJ: Once again, I have no interest in debating anonymous, unqualified armchair quarterbacks who think they know better than Archbishop Lefebvre.


     
    Again, PV, this is not a personal attack. Don’t take it personally. :P
    Logged

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #37 on: August 08, 2018, 06:54:49 PM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!4
    • Quote
    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:

    I cannot believe that here in 2018 we are debating the positive points of the novus ordo with SSPX devotees.
    Why on earth don't they simply return to the conciliar church and stop the charade of a so called resistance.



    Logged

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #38 on: August 08, 2018, 07:08:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote
    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 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?
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #39 on: August 08, 2018, 07:35:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: JPaul on August 08, 2018, 07:08:13 PM
    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:

    http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX8.htm
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #40 on: August 08, 2018, 08:20:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on August 08, 2018, 07:35:57 PM
    Bishop Castro de Mayer signed the docuмents as well:

    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?
    Logged

    Offline cathman7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 815
    • Reputation: +882/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #41 on: August 08, 2018, 08:34:55 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: JPaul on August 08, 2018, 08:20:30 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #42 on: August 08, 2018, 08:39:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: JPaul on August 08, 2018, 08:20:30 PM
    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?

    lol...I just gave you proof (i.e., his signatures are in the Acta Synodalia, both for attendance AND signing the docs), and your response is that your research should be allowed to call that reality -fact- into question.

    Once again, another armchair quarterback not worth engaging. ::)
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #43 on: August 08, 2018, 08:40:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: obscurus on August 08, 2018, 08:34:55 PM
    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.

    Pesky facts which don't fit the desired narrative of these folks are easily swept aside without so much as a blush.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: “Eleison Comments” by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DLXXVII (577)
    « Reply #44 on: August 08, 2018, 08:51:43 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
    • 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.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
    « previous next »