It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:10 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 Bishop Williamson Interview and Articles in Commentary 
Author Message

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post Bishop Williamson Interview and Articles in Commentary
Interview:

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-interview-with-he-bishop-richard-n.html

Commentaries:

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/10/reflections-on-bishop-williamson.html

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:47 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Hello Stephen,

Great job with some astute interview questions. Thanks for the hard work in putting it together.

I have a couple of questions that you might deal with either here, or in your own bailiwick, if you get the time.

I'm going to divide these into separate posts to avoid confusion.


Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:44 pm
Profile
New post 
Dear Stephen, keep up the good work :) Happy feastday of the Holy Guardian Angels to all. love, Eliz.


Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:45 pm

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Re: "Mind Rot"

(someone in a third party comment on Stephen's blog) wrote:
His incisive treatment of Sedevacantism’s inability to not comprehend how the “mind rot” of Modernism can “blind” even those who hold high ecclesiastical offices from the Truth is also to be applauded.


I'm not sure what Catholic moral distinction "intellectual gangrene" falls under. I'm not even sure how secular psychology would deal with it. But my question is: once this "incisive" treatment is allowed in the rule book, then to what is it not possible to apply it? Were Valla in the Renaissance, Voltaire in the Enlightenment, Luther in the Reformation not wrong, but unfortunately and sadly only "mind-rotten"?

As well as opening the door for virtual anarchy in dealing with making decisions about others who are in definite opposition to traditional moral teaching I would also point out that while Modernism itself may be a new tactic, the devil's stategy remains the same. Therefore, how does Modernism come with its own built-in excuses that we have never felt need to use before?

The enemy has always been quite daunting. The world, the flesh, and the devil are always blinding and invasive, and have never in history been much inclined to rest.

The Christian in Imperial Rome could claim: "But Nero is actually burning our sons and daughters. We surely live in the worst of times to follow the Lord". A young man in Ireland could say: "Everybody in my village is pagan. This certainly is the worst of times to listen to this Patrick fellow". The merchant in 16th century London claims: "All my neighbors have taken the oath. They are killing the Jesuits in brutal ways. Surely, this is the worst of times to hold true to what we have been taught". Here we seem to have Bishop Williamson saying that NOW is the most forgiveable of times to have abandoned the Faith (what with all the dreaded mind rot thing going on), yet we allow no excuses for abandoning the Faith in the past no matter how understandable.

Are we to extend the concept of martyrdom to "blinded by poor text books, and bad reading habits"? Especially when the the imbibing of this mind rot was not forced upon them, but came about though the satisfaction of "itching ears"? We would need a much more thorough explication of this mind rot to find it believable. Is it just a pervasive intellectual climate, and an incentive in physical comfort to act a certain way? I would say that the situation of a Christian vis-a-vis "The World" always contains these components and one is obliged not to give in. ALL wordly situations the Church finds itself in are arduously difficult and productive of excuses. Thus we characterize the situation as "militant". The Roman in early centuries was forced to choose between a mine labor camp, or the arena and a licentious court life. The Renaissance youngster might have to choose between a monastery and a drawing room full of comfort. These were not simple physical choices. The societies as a whole produced a mental fog every bit as strong as a university climate of Modernism. We give too much (or not enough) respect to modernism to believe that its effects are to be excused.

(edited to clear up attribution of quote.)


Last edited by Geoff Tribbe on Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post 
Geoff

Did I write that or did one of the commentators write that?

s.

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
(someone in a third party comment on Stephen's blog) wrote:
The more I look at sedevacantism (and battle it on the front line), the more I cannot help but conclude that this too is a product of “Fiftiesism”, if even only indirectly. However this would take some time to explain, which we do not have here.



Two questions here.

1. Could anyone explain "Fiftiesism" or provide a link to one of Bishop Williamson's articles to explain it?

2. At some point, if this person could get around to elaboration on its connection with sedevancantism, it would be interesting.


(edited to clear up attribution of quote)


Last edited by Geoff Tribbe on Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:17 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Quote:
Geoff

Did I write that or did one of the commentators write that?



Stephen,

I apologize on the error if you didn't. On your website, it's very confusing to me. At the end of this material there is postscript that says "Kansas City, Missouri" and then "posted by Stephen Heiner". If it's not you then it's not readily apparent who it is. If you did not write it, I will be glad to change my attributions according, but my comments would still stand against the position shown.

Thanks,

Geoff


Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post 
That last quote is from an article from Louis Tofari, the SSPX.org webmaster. I suspect the first one is from that also or from one of the other articles. I didn't write anything in reflection. Please make sure you say "on Stephen's blog a writer said" not "Stephen said"

On this specific set of articles, I put up a disclaimer saying that putting these articles up did not mean I agreed with all of them, it was a chance to actually hear contrasting sides...

s.

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
There is an interesting post over at AQ by user Kankin concerning Bishop Williamsom's article
that I believe make a good point concerning the fundamental law of Canon Law and that is the
"Salvation of Souls".

Kankin cites the following question and answer from this Bishop Williamsom's article:

Quote:
Then churchmen such as Benedict XVI are completely innocent of what they are doing?

I did not say that. If they are the authorities of God’s Church, then logically the Lord God is offering them all the graces they need to lead the Church rightly. If then they are misleading the Church, they are refusing those graces, which means that they cannot, inside themselves, be innocent. But we are entering into inner depths upon which God alone can judge.


Then Kankin states the following:
Quote:
I think Our Lady has answered this question at La Salette, Garabandal, Akita, and Fatima about their innocence that Bishop Williamsom is addressing.


However --- there is another serious problem and that is that they may be taking not only their soul into eternal damnation but many other souls with them.


Which I considered and thought that if Ratzinger and others are not innocent but yet still allowed to take other souls into hell with them. Does that not mean Traditional Cathholics that are aware of the problem are not in some way responsible as well if they did not take some action to prevent bad Church leaders from taking others with them on the road to perdition?

Kankin then cites some messages from Our Lady as follows:

Quote:
Garabandal:
Many Cardinals, many Bishops and many Priests are on the road to perdition and with them they are bringing many souls.

Akita:
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

Fatima:
You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart ... ... ... To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.

Sister Lucia:
"Father, we should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our Bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations"


Perhaps we are so busy worried about the Pope, Bishops, and Preists that we are forgetting eveyone else?

Is the soul of your neighbor any less valueable than the soul of the Pope in GOD's eyes?


Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
oremus wrote:
Perhaps we are so busy worried about the Pope, Bishops, and Preists that we are forgetting eveyone else?

Is the soul of your neighbor any less valueable than the soul of the Pope in GOD's eyes?


I have asked this same question many times. Some are so concerned with saving their position on "the Pope question" that they seem to have thought little about the fact that all these souls have been mislead...have left the Faith...embraced immoral lifestyles...because they have been told that it simply does not matter. How can the teaching of what is effectively universal salvation do anything but be a source of almost absolute indifference.

If Benedict XVI has a "sick mind", then that "sick mind" is a product of modern man's acceptance of relativism. It seems that modern man has been so bombarded with relativistic thought that he can no longer see that relativism exists. So even if we accept that, due to his relativism, he is not culpable for his errors; the errors still exist. They are still errors and the effect of a teacher teaching error is the same whether the teacher unknowingly or knowingly teaches that error.

Is the Teaching Apostolate of the Church protected from teaching error or is She only protected from knowingly teaching error?

Is the Church protected from issuing a false liturgy or only protected from knowingly issuing a false liturgy?

Is the Church protected from issuing false disciplines or only protected from knowingly issuing false disciplines?

Take this example from a CAI writer:

"from CAI website article" wrote:
“The truth itself is not evolving, according to Benedict XVI. He has clearly rejected any form of relativism. What he is saying is that the Church can overreact in the face of changing historical circumstances and intellectual currents, and make provisional doctrinal statements which upon a more mature examination are found to be erroneous.”


The only thing Benedict has rejected is the idea that relativism actually exists. If something is found to be erroneous, then it has always been erroneous. So this means, I think, that the Church can teach doctrinal error...but sooner or later the Church will correct the error. How we know when this correction occurs or what doctrines are erroneous at any given time is anyone's guess.


Last edited by Robert Bastaja on Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
Robert,

You state some very striking points about the Church "knowingly" allowing things to occur. I conclude that what is in Rome is a "false church" and thus can allow things that are false.

Over at AQ that use Kankin has posted more and really struck me as well.

Quote:
But is dawned on me that Pope Benedict XVI may believe like his predecessor in "Universal Salvation" and thus - Where? is his or any other Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Priests responsilbility of being a shepherd of souls?

Are they not in effect abandoning their duties as shepherds?

A Catholic Pope of "Universal Salvation" seems to me to be a contradiction of their very duty assigned by Our Lord himself, "feed my sheep".


Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:38 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post 
Geoff

the name of the author follows the title of the post.

s.

e.g. The Rest of the Story, by Louis Tofari

posted by Stephen Heiner

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Geoff,

"Incisive" is one of those modern words which stand for "I agree" in most contexts. :)


Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Therefore, how does Modernism come with its own built-in excuses that we have never felt need to use before?


I think it comes with a built-in excuse in the sense that it really is founded on an attack on philosophical truth - Hegel and Kant. So that it is true to say, I think, that these men do not comprehend the very truths they deny. Hell is a concept which cannot be comprehended outside of the infinite justice and purity of God. But the infinite justice of God cannot be comprehended by a mind which does not comprehend the notion of law, for justice is nothing more nor less than conformity with the law. But law is an absolute notion, not a relative one. Something is either the law or it is not the law. An act either conforms with it or it doesn't. These men do not see this. They have rendered their minds incapable of seeing it.

Yes, they are guilty of this mind-rot, because they are responsible for how they think, as we all are responsible for how we think. How we think is a fruit of what we read, the health or otherwise of our spiritual lives, etc. But this is a secondary point. Bishop Williamson is arguing not merely that they are innocent, but rather that they cannot abandon the Faith unless they see clearly that there is absolute truth and they must hold it. Which seems to me to be an inversion of the true situation, which is that one cannot possess and profess the Faith unless one sees that there is absolute truth; that at least some things are not "relative."

Not that the objects of Faith are always entirely clear - far from it! But only that the act of Faith is a very simple thing, in itself, and requires only that level of sanity which we call common sense, which all men except imbeciles possess in sufficient measure for this purpose.

We must keep distinguished the act of Faith from its objects. True, the act must have some objects in view. But the act is not its objects. Bishop Williamson is essentially arguing that the objects of Faith are so obscure in the Modernist mind that it is never clear to the Modernist (outside of an authoritative admonition) that his ideas contradict the truths of the Faith. But if this argument goes anywhere, it leads to the conclusion that the Modernist mind cannot form an act of Faith, for an act of Faith presupposes some object or objects, which must be, by their very nature, absolute or unchanging truths. "I believe THESE TRUTHS and all the TRUTHS which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them..."

St. Pius X says somewhere that if the scholastic philosophy is ever abandoned, the very words employed by the Church to express her dogmas will no longer be understood. Which is not only true in the abstract, but we live in an era when it is almost universally true in the concrete. The question therefore is easy for us to examine. Does this inability to grasp absolute truths as absolute truths imply the possession of true (if deformed) Faith? Or does it not rather imply the total incapacity for Faith itself? I think the answer is all around us, and we call it "apostasy."

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Ok, but I'm just trying to point out that just as it is impossible for me to be "Teilhardian" in ascribing some consistent and progressive historical cycling of life toward some societal perfection of good (on this side of our final reward), I also find it difficult to accept on principle that there are forms of evil which because of some (Hegelian?) spiral have mutated into an absolving, overwhelming blotting out of the power of humanity to resist. I just personally lean toward thinking there is nothing new under the sun. I may be wrong, and I'd be glad to listen to someone explain their disagreement.

I not sure being "post-Kant" (and by the way, I think JPII and Benedict XVI would describe themselves as "anti-Kantian" per their involvement with the slyness of von Balthasar) is inherently any worse than being "post Epicurus". That is to say the disordered affection that the common man has for hedonism as a rule for life in this world is much more of a force working against good than any 18th century intellectualism could hope to be. To be even more sweeping, and going along with what I said in the previous post, I think every historical complaint of overriding adversity pales before the fact that we are all, no matter what age we live in, "post-Adam". That is the salient fact.

We all tend to romanticize and see ourselves as the hero, and thus we all believe that we all live in the worst of times. I find the "mind rot" idea repugnant because it gives excuse with little cause. For those of you that say that Modernism is a vicious and horrible adversary, I say that yonder stands a man with a sword to his throat while his children are being fed to wild beasts. If such a man have need of excuses, I shall offer them.

The tragedy of Modernism isn't that it was so fiendishly clever, it is that so many succumbed to it. It is a pathetic bunch of losers that are foolish enough to absolve the victors for their defeat.


Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:04 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.