Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 20, 2019, 10:08:51 AM
-
Bishop Williamson conference on Vatican II, Prometheus book in NY, Oct 12-13, 2019
It reminded me of his old Seminary classes on Pascendi ("on Modernism") since Fr. Calderon's book, Prometheus, shows how Vatican II hangs together and really gives a 10,000 foot view of the New Religion. Pascendi also gives an excellent summary of Modernism.
These conferences were classic Bp. Williamson -- he was completely in his element.
For future conferences, sermons, and other great content by Resistance priests, I recommend you subscribe to the CathInfo channel on Youtube.
(The following link is also the best way to share "all" of the conference videos to your e-mail list, Facebook and other social media, your blog, etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7MMuCvrXSbn98K7tSU_USA (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7MMuCvrXSbn98K7tSU_USA)
Intro parts 1 & 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHyjZTec0o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BilTyeSVnIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GvXs6oacsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z22BUIBv_Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8j0fNJTI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFXZenkBMVk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVORDwEVuds
-
Thank you, Matthew. I too absolutely loved his conferences a the Seminary. They were captivating. He gave a weekly talk to the entire seminary on Wednesday afternoons, before dinner, and we looked forward to these all week.
-
This man belongs in a seminary, forming generations of priests. What a crime that the SSPX ousted him.
-
Hasn't Bp. Williamson signed Fr. Calderon's death warrant in the sspx? By endorsing his book, it seems, Fr. C. will be history in the Society.
-
Thanks for upload. I learn a lot of it, subscribe your YouTube Chanel. At this time it's the only way for me, here in Germany to see&hear his Excellence.
-
Where can I see when BP. Williamson will be in NY? I live in Ny and would love to attend a conference.
-
Bp. Tissier is at the American seminary now.
It’s worth noting that Fr. Calderon still teaches at an SSPX seminary.
Superficially, yes.
But when you think about it, it's neither here nor there.
What is your point? That the SSPX still has some redeeming value, some good priests and faithful? That they're not a diabolical organization of 100% boogey men?
I would concede that any day of the week.
The problem with the SSPX is that the leadership is aggressively drilling a hole in the floor of their boat as fast as they can. That's why I got off that lifeboat. Some (who are lousy at lifeboat construction/swimming, or are fearful, etc.) are staying on the SSPX lifeboat until the water is up to their mouths. That's their choice.
The SSPX has compromised on doctrine. They are rotten on a doctrinal level. The practical fruits of this will follow. If not today, in 5 years or 10 years.
The problem is: only a small percentage of people say "Oh crap!" when the doctrine changes. Back in Vatican II, it was a minority who saw where the new orientation would lead. It takes far-seeing, deep and clear thinkers. Such are rare. These are the people who get off the cruiseliner immediately after they feel a huge shudder and learn that an iceberg has been hit. Most people don't even think of leaving until they see water on the ship...
I remember in 2003, only 2 seminarians saw the "writing on the wall" when we all heard the news that +Williamson was being transferred. Myself (26) and the oldest seminarian there, (age 41). We knew that big changes would be coming.
-
You can't say
Resistance is to SSPX
as
Mainstream Media is to Trump
No, the MSM lies and slanders Trump. They hate him and all his followers (yes, over half of the country!) They hate him because he does what is good for America and he often thwarts and dials back their evil plans.
-
These are very good and informative conferences. I see that in the 4th conference, during the Q&A time, that the Bishop (although he believes Francis is the Pope) is not dogmatic that Francis is Pope and admits that Benedict may still be Pope or that neither is Pope.
-
These are very good and informative conferences. I see that in the 4th conference, during the Q&A time, that the Bishop (although he believes Francis is the Pope) is not dogmatic that Francis is Pope and admits that Benedict may still be Pope or that neither is Pope.
Agreed, except I would add that his opinion is reached without even considering the universal acceptance/dogmatic fact argument.
I spoke with him on the phone last week and raised precisely that point, to which he audibly “hmmmm’d” and said he would have to go back and check the manuals.
He then offered that the theologians could not have foreseen a crisis of this magnitude (an opinion rebutted by a quote someone supplied last week showing that in fact at least one had considered it).
So, if Bishop Williamson is going to go back to check the manuals, what he is going to find is that all the theologians are unanimous in their assertion that a universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact.
And in that case, if Bishop Williamson’s tolerance of doubt is based on being uninformed of what the theologians teach, then I’m not sure how much weight his opinion on this topic ought to carry.
I’m neither saying that Francis’s papacy is, or is not, a dogmatic fact. We earlier discussed/speculated that MAYBE there may be an intrinsic difference in the nature of the pre vs post-conciliar papacies, in that the former were not suspect of heresy, while the latter were/are.
What is certain (and this was quite a blow to me), is that Bishop Williamson says Archbishop Lefebvre certainly allowed/tolerated persons to privately entertain the possibility that the pope was not the pope (yet another blow to me), which implies the sede theory is -according to Lefebvre- at least theologically possible (though BW said Lefebvre believed it created more problems than it solved).
So, if Bishop Williamson’s position on the theological possibility rests upon the authority of Lefebvre having believed (at least at times) that sedevacantism was possible, then it is not an opinion founded upon nothing.
For me this was all quite a revelation, and I make no dogmatic statements on the subject anymore.
I think -at the moment- that I am inclined to believe that Lefebvre sometimes, in the heat of battle, when provoked by rank scandal and heresy, sometimes MAY have said things which he should not have, and was sometimes overly indignant (just as I can be, and as he admitted to Davies in the Apologia, Vol II, Ch. 40).
I THINK (but am not sure) that If this was the case (if, if, if!), I would still be inclined to say that the universally accepted pope remains a dogmatic fact, and that it is not possible for him not to be pope; that I would side with the unanimous consent of theologians over Lefebvre/Williamson if forced to, WHILE STILL ACKNOWLEDGING I COULD BE WRONG (eg., perhaps because of the intrinsic difference between the heretic pope’s vs their orthodox predecessors, etc).
I think I am learning, at least on this topic, not to form a solid opinion, and live with the uncertainty (despite my preference at the moment to continue to side with the theologians).
Many might disagree, and I am not sure they would be wrong.
-
I like His Excellency Bishop Williamson's sermons and learn a a lot from them generally. I hope H.E. is reconciled with the Society one day. The Universal Acceptance has only fully come to light more recently, e.g. after the SSPX's endorsement of True or False Pope. I recall that Fr. Boulet mentioned it in passing in a 2004 article, however he didn't dwell on it at length. Anyway, that's for aother thread.
-
The Universal Acceptance has only fully come to light more recently
This is not some recent development. UA simply does not apply to this situation.
You try to pretend that S&S came up with some amazing new discovery in putting together a badly-flawed chapter on UA.
-
These are very good and informative conferences. I see that in the 4th conference, during the Q&A time, that the Bishop (although he believes Francis is the Pope) is not dogmatic that Francis is Pope and admits that Benedict may still be Pope or that neither is Pope.
Right, +Williamson never has considered their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact ... nor did Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Right, +Williamson never has considered their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact ... nor did Archbishop Lefebvre.
Well, just for clarity, based on my phone conversation with Bishop Williamson on the subject, he appears not to have studied the matter.
So while his conclusion (ie., the technical possibility of sedevacantism) would logically suggest he had rejected the claims of universally accepted pope’s being dogmatic facts, it appears he reached the conclusion of the technical possibility of sedevacantism in reliance upon Archbishop Lefebvre’s occasional words that such was a possibility, and not because he thought the UA argument didn’t apply.
What would BW conclude if he refreshed his studies on the matter?
I dare not speculate.
But it would seem the real question should center around +Lefebvre (since +Williamson’s opinion is formed on reliance upon +Lefebvre’s private tolerance and occasional opinion regarding its possibility).
Interestingly, +Lefebvre did sometimes raise the universal consent argument (cited elsewhere), and at other times, make statements suggesting the sede possibility.
Were these flare-ups he later regretted, rather than actual changes of position (ie., words said in the heat of battle on occasions of grave scandal)?
That would seem reasonable, yet Bishop Williamson does not suggest that as an explanation.
I would like to converse with him more deeply on this point, to see if +Lefebvre’s tolerance was more sporadic/occasion-based, or sustained.
-
Well, just for clarity, based on my phone conversation with Bishop Williamson on the subject, he appears not to have studied the matter.
So while his conclusion (ie., the technical possibility of sedevacantism) would logically suggest he had rejected the claims of universally accepted pope’s being dogmatic facts, it appears he reached the conclusion of the technical possibility of sedevacantism in reliance upon Archbishop Lefebvre’s occasional words that such was a possibility, and not because he thought the UA argument didn’t apply.
What would BW conclude if he refreshed his studies on the matter?
I dare not speculate ...
Agreed, Sean. His Excellency himself can let us know in due time after calmly reviewing the matter. I would recommend TOFP, it's very well written, and nicely researched, on this particular question.
-
Well, just for clarity, based on my phone conversation with Bishop Williamson on the subject, he appears not to have studied the matter.
So while his conclusion (ie., the technical possibility of sedevacantism) would logically suggest he had rejected the claims of universally accepted pope’s being dogmatic facts, it appears he reached the conclusion of the technical possibility of sedevacantism in reliance upon Archbishop Lefebvre’s occasional words that such was a possibility, and not because he thought the UA argument didn’t apply.
What would BW conclude if he refreshed his studies on the matter?
I dare not speculate.
But it would seem the real question should center around +Lefebvre (since +Williamson’s opinion is formed on reliance upon +Lefebvre’s private tolerance and occasional opinion regarding its possibility).
Interestingly, +Lefebvre did sometimes raise the universal consent argument (cited elsewhere), and at other times, make statements suggesting the sede possibility.
Were these flare-ups he later regretted, rather than actual changes of position (ie., words said in the heat of battle on occasions of grave scandal)?
That would seem reasonable, yet Bishop Williamson does not suggest that as an explanation.
I would like to converse with him more deeply on this point, to see if +Lefebvre’s tolerance was more sporadic/occasion-based, or sustained.
What are you hoping to achieve? Are you hoping that +W will endorse sedevacantism or sedeprivationism?
-
I would recommend TOFP, it's very well written, and nicely researched, on this particular question.
TOFP is a tragic mess that has been completely shredded.
-
What are you hoping to achieve? Are you hoping that +W will endorse sedevacantism or sedeprivationism?
You haven't been following the UA discussion. For Sean, if anything it would be quite the opposite.
-
You haven't been following the UA discussion. For Sean, if anything it would be quite the opposite.
I don't understand how some people are missing the nuances here.
You can be a dogmatic Sedeplenist who says that to disagree with sedeplenism is necessarily heresy or schism, or you can be a Sedeplenist who believes that the Church could eventually rule in favor of vacancy but still believe Sedeplenism is the safer route, and neither is Sedevacantist or Sedeprivationist.
Heck you could even hold to Sedeplenism and be uncertain whether its dogmatic or not.
-
Heck you could even hold to Sedeplenism and be uncertain whether its dogmatic or not.
I think this now describes me.
-
Quote from: SeanJohnson (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg673501#msg673501)
I think this now describes me.
That's the difference between the SSPX and the Resistance: we know our theology and you do not.
True or False Pope Endorsements, His Excellency Bishop Fellay: "until now—at least in the English-speaking world—only articles and booklets have been published against Sedevacantism and its related errors. A comprehensive and definitive refutation, firmly grounded in ecclesiology, has been sorely needed. We thus pray that True or False Pope? finds its way to many Catholics of good will, be they of perplexed mind at the moment. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe’s book will surely afford much clarity to the reader.” http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html) See other endorsements by Priests, specifically Father Francois Laisney, Fr. Yves Le Roux and Father Steven Reuter. it's safe to say TOFP is SSPX-endorsed, and is solid Catholic Theology. Every informed traditional Catholic who wants to know how to refute SVism should read it. I'm not posting all of them here as it would be too long.
-
That's the difference between the SSPX and the Resistance: we know our theology and you do not.
True or False Pope Endorsements, His Excellency Bishop Fellay: "until now—at least in the English-speaking world—only articles and booklets have been published against Sedevacantism and its related errors. A comprehensive and definitive refutation, firmly grounded in ecclesiology, has been sorely needed. We thus pray that True or False Pope? finds its way to many Catholics of good will, be they of perplexed mind at the moment. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe’s book will surely afford much clarity to the reader.” http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html) See other endorsements by Priests, specifically Father Francois Laisney, Fr. Yves Le Roux and Father Steven Reuter. it's safe to say TOFP is SSPX-endorsed, and is solid Catholic Theology. Every informed traditional Catholic who wants to know how to refute SVism should read it. I'm not posting all of them here as it would be too long.
It would be better for you just to say, “This is our story, and we’re sticking to it,” as you definitely do not know your theology.
For example: Who is correct in their understanding of St. Bellarmine’s position: Dr. Lamont or Siscoe/Salza?
Please give your reasons.
But you can’t, because though you can regurgitate someone else’s position, and embrace it as your own, you have no ability to read the source, much less make an informed commentary on it.
Your side embraced Siscoe/Salza, so you do the same, based on authority.
But you are not capable of giving s lucid explanation for why Siscoe is right, and Lamont wrong.
This means you do not know your theology on this subject (and there are very few who do).
da Silveira perhaps? Maybe 3-4 others?
-
Heh. I already explained the Dr. Lamont thing. In St. Robert's view, the Pope loses his office after one or two warnings from many Cardinals and Bishops, after there is no longer universal acceptance, but before the Church makes the final declaration. I explained this by citing Fr. Ballerini. There's no suggestion in the Doctors of any Pope losing his office without any kind of warning, or while still having universal acceptance. That's a modern novelty, that arises from either ignorance of or unwillingness to deal with the UA teaching.
Your last statement is quite laughable, really, because I told Siscoe about Universal Acceptance, while they were still making the rather weak arguments from pertinacity alone some 7 odd years ago, but I'll let it pass. A sede acquaintance recently told me, an SSPX Priest in Australia told him, in the 90s, and for most of the first decade millenium, the sedes had the better arguments. R&R arguments were quite poor, some were incredibly weak. Many R&Rers couldn't answer sede arguments and believed them to be incontrovertible. It was the re-discovery of Universal Acceptance teaching in Cardinal Billot, St. Alphonsus et al that turned the tide in favor of R&R once more.
-
I think this now describes me.
It seems pretty clear to me that Lefebvre did not think it was dogmatic, but less so that he was right.
I have a hard time seeing it as dogmatic in the light of current events, but I'm also aware that that's an emotional response and not a strictly logical one.
But while in the case of heretical teaching I can make the argument of "well, yes its heretical, but we have no way of knowing/proving that he *realizes* this" I Have a harder time arguing that with something so much more overt such as Pachamama worship. Can a Catholic worship Pachamama idols?
I suppose you could make the argument that it was an act of ecuмenism and thus while mortal sin not a sincere reflection of belief.
IDK... but I can't wag my finger at Sedevacantists while the Vatican is literally worshipping idols. No, I'm not a Sede, and I think its safer to assume the Pope is the Pope, but I feel like I'd be putting my head in the sand if I didn't say I get the struggle.
-
Heh. I already explained the Dr. Lamont thing. In St. Robert's view, the Pope loses his office after one or two warnings from many Cardinals and Bishops, after there is no longer universal acceptance, but before the Church makes the final declaration. I explained this by citing Fr. Ballerini. There's no suggestion in the Doctors of any Pope losing his office without any kind of warning, or while still having universal acceptance. That's a modern novelty, that arises from either ignorance of or unwillingness to deal with the UA teaching.
Your last statement is quite laughable, really, because I told Siscoe about Universal Acceptance, while they were still making the rather weak arguments from pertinacity alone some 7 odd years ago, but I'll let it pass. A sede acquaintance recently told me, an SSPX Priest in Australia told him, in the 90s, and for most of the first decade millenium, the sedes had the better arguments. R&R arguments were quite poor, some were incredibly weak. Many R&Rers couldn't answer sede arguments and believed them to be incontrovertible. It was the re-discovery of Universal Acceptance teaching in Cardinal Billot, St. Alphonsus et al that turned the tide in favor of R&R once more.
We all know what Siscoe says Bellarmine says.
I can teach a monkey to regurgitate it to you, but that won’t mean the monkey knows his theology.
Firstly, you have no idea what Bellsrmine teaches, because the only thing you know of it is what you have heard others say of him.
What I’m looking for you to do is quote both author and principle in the formation of an argument to prove Dr. Lamont is wrong, and Siscoe right.
From that point, we can take the next step, and repeat the same procedure with Cajetan and JST (whom you also have have never read).
Which really means you can’t even take tge first step, because contrary to your claim, you don’t really know any theology.
What you are good at, instead, is persevering in a position regardless of what is said, and posting things you found other people said to help you keep that position afloat.
I would go even further, and suggest to you that none of the SSPX priests have studied the sources, but instead endorsed the book based on the conclusion it reached.
-
I would go even further, and suggest to you that none of the SSPX priests have studied the sources, but instead endorsed the book based on the conclusion it reached.
Heh. And you would be blatantly wrong, as usual. Fr. Laisney expressly said he read every page of it.
I don't need to do your homework for you. I've read St. Robert many times, I know what the holy Doctor teaches, and it isn't what modern sedes think. Whether you know it or not, St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot, and yes, even Fr. Ballerini, are all of St. Robert's school only. I could cite you many eminent theologians like Cardinal Journet of John of St. Thomas' school, but I don't need to. You want to prove something, you bear the burden of proof. I don't need to, and I'm not going to do so here since its not the thread topic anyway.
I would only advise you to read why St. Robert rejects the second opinion more carefully before you presume to state St. Robert would have agreed with this person or that person. St. Robert taught the Pope is not removed from God, except through the action of men. Thus, the action of the men of the Church to determine the Pope's public pertinacity in heresy, i.e. to determine that the Pope is manifestly obstinate, is absolutely necessary. That is the true opinion of St. Robert. Read up and you will see.
-
Heh. And you would be blatantly wrong, as usual. Fr. Laisney expressly said he read every page of it.
I don't need to do your homework for you. I've read St. Robert many times, I know what the holy Doctor teaches, and it isn't what modern sedes think. Whether you know it or not, St. Alphonsus, Cardinal Billot, and yes, even Fr. Ballerini, are all of St. Robert's school only. I could cite you many eminent theologians like Cardinal Journet of John of St. Thomas' school, but I don't need to. You want to prove something, you bear the burden of proof. I don't need to, and I'm not going to do so here since its not the thread topic anyway.
I would only advise you to read why St. Robert rejects the second opinion more carefully before you presume to state St. Robert would have agreed with this person or that person. St. Robert taught the Pope is not removed from God, except through the action of men. Thus, the action of the men of the Church to determine the Pope's public pertinacity in heresy, i.e. to determine that the Pope is manifestly obstinate, is absolutely necessary. That is the true opinion of St. Robert. Read up and you will see.
I didn’t say they didn’t read the book.
I said they didn’t read the sources (ie., Bellarmine, et al).
In other words, they read a story whose conclusion they liked, and on that basis endorsed it.
-
I'm not posting all of them here as it would be too long.
"Too long" posts have never before been an issue for you. :soapbox: :popcorn:
-
Bishop Williamson conference on Vatican II, Prometheus book in NY, Oct 12-13, 2019
It reminded me of his old Seminary classes on Pascendi ("on Modernism") since Fr. Calderon's book, Prometheus, shows how Vatican II hangs together and really gives a 10,000 foot view of the New Religion. Pascendi also gives an excellent summary of Modernism.
These conferences were classic Bp. Williamson -- he was completely in his element.
For future conferences, sermons, and other great content by Resistance priests, I recommend you subscribe to the CathInfo channel on Youtube.
(The following link is also the best way to share "all" of the conference videos to your e-mail list, Facebook and other social media, your blog, etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7MMuCvrXSbn98K7tSU_USA (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7MMuCvrXSbn98K7tSU_USA)
Intro parts 1 & 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTHyjZTec0o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BilTyeSVnIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GvXs6oacsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z22BUIBv_Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8j0fNJTI84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFXZenkBMVk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVORDwEVuds
do you have access to the sheets Bishop Williamson uses during his presentation?
-
Thanks for bumping these. I always enjoy listening to these talks ... brings back great memories from STAS in the good old days when SSPX were still staunchly anti-Modernist.
-
Well, just for clarity, based on my phone conversation with Bishop Williamson on the subject, he appears not to have studied the matter.
So while his conclusion (ie., the technical possibility of sedevacantism) would logically suggest he had rejected the claims of universally accepted pope’s being dogmatic facts, it appears he reached the conclusion of the technical possibility of sedevacantism in reliance upon Archbishop Lefebvre’s occasional words that such was a possibility, and not because he thought the UA argument didn’t apply.
What would BW conclude if he refreshed his studies on the matter?
He would finally come to the conclusion that the MAGISTERIUM is the "yardstick of infallibility" and not Tradition (nor Scripture), and see that it's not possible for a public heretic to be the Pope (as IS the Truth and as WAS said by Archbishop Lefebvre shortly before Assisi) and conclude correctly that a Pachamama honoring, pedophile protecting, heresy spewing freemason who refuses to call himself the Vicar of Christ is not Peter no matter how many of the ignorant believe him to be.
-
Confirm what others have said. I remember my first year at seminary, there were eleven of us in the class. We had Bp. Williamson for Acts of Magisterium. He asked us one day, "How many J... died in the gas chambers?" I was the only one who put a big fat "0" on my piece of paper. I think I passed that quiz. He called out the answers (it was a blind quiz), and mine was the only "0."
-
Thanks for bumping this thread.
I was just thinking about this, almost exactly 4 years ago. I stayed with a Trad Catholic resistance supporter, who nudged me into Ham Radio!
I was neck deep into studying electronics at the time, and he suggested I might enjoy ham radio. He was right of course. The rest is history.