It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:23 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
From: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/vario ... 1-2012.htm

Various Churches?

12-21-2012

Fr. Francois Laisney

This response is a rebuttal to some statements made by Bishop Williamson on his blog, Eleison Comments of which we offer the pertinent extracts below.

Eleison Comments (CCLXXXI (281)) December 1, 2012 [NB: these are no longer available online]

Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called. Easily most of the present confusion comes from the Church’s biggest problem of today, which is the diabolical Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Let us attempt to disentangle some of the confusion...

“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible?

“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

____________________________________________________________

Fr. Laisney's rebuttal

Truly much confusion reigns on the subject of the Church, and dangerous notions are put forward, even among Catholics attached to Tradition.

One can read: “That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.”

Immediately the question is raised: is the Catholic Church merely “a part of the visible Church”? And this leads to another more fundamental question: is it legitimate to distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and the visible Church?

On the contrary, does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church and the visible Church? Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.

True, the author of the above quoted passage affirms that the Catholic Church is recognizable by its four notes; but he lets the reader understand that these four notes belong only to “a part of the visible Church.” So he puts in question not the first, but the second equality.

And the great danger of such an affirmation is that the limit of the Catholic Church becomes practically invisible.

The author thinks he sufficiently affirms the visibility of the Catholic Church by writing:

"But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions."

The error of such a phrase is to fail to grasp the true meaning of the affirmation “the Catholic Church is visible.” When the Church teaches this truth - e.g., Pius XII in Mystici Corporis - it does not consider the Catholic Church as a species within a genus (which is the relation between lions and animals) as if he were saying nothing else than anyone could see people called Catholics as they could see people called Anglicans, Orthodox, Episcopalians, etc, as if visible Church was a genus within which one species would be the Catholic Church.

No! The affirmation “the Catholic Church is visible” means: “the Church of Christ is visible, and the Catholic Church is this Church.” Nowhere Pius XII, neither any other Catholic authority, has ever taught that the Catholic Church would be merely a “part of the visible Church”. No! The whole Church of Christ is visible, and the whole is the Catholic Church. And it is WITHIN the Catholic Church that one finds a mixture of good and bad fishes (Mt 13:48), of good grain and cockle (Mt 133:25), of wheat and chaff (Mt 3:12), of good Apostles and Judases. Never did the Catholic Church teach that it only comprised the eleven good Apostles (the part that had the note of holiness), and that Judas was the rot, outside of that faithful part. Yes, Judas was rotten, but within the Catholic Church, the only Church of Christ.

Then what is the Conciliar Church? This expressed was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really. It signified a new spirit, new principles, but not a new structure, nor a separate hierarchy and separate faithful. This new spirit causes the members infected by it in the Church to rot in as much as they are infected by it; it is like a virus in the Mystical Body of Christ: some cells are entirely corrupted, others only partially infected, some more some less, and few are exempt from it. It is true to say that this spirit is not Catholic; it is a spirit of rupture, a revolutionary spirit, it is 1789 in the Church.

But this spirit does not constitute a separate Church; it infects more or less the members of the Catholic Church. The separation between the sound members and the infected members is not visible, from the very fact that some members are only partially infected. It is like the separation between good and evil within the Church: the limit is within each member himself, since nobody is perfect here below! It is only at the end of the world that the separation shall be achieved, not by human judgment, but by the Judgment of Christ Himself, the Sovereign Judge, true God and true man. This does not mean that the infection is not visible: as evil members are visible in the Church (and scandals have not lacked after Vatican II), so also this conciliar infection is visible, especially in those who are fully infected: modernist theologians, modernist priests’ petitions in Austria… One sees these false principles at work in the practical ecumenical meetings (Assisi, concelebrations, visits to Synagogues, kissing of the Koran…)

These false principles do not constitute a separate Church, not even a distinct part of a whole which the visible Church would be.

To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality, it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre.

To separate within the visible Church, a Conciliar part, rotten, which “is not the Catholic Church”, and a Catholic part which would only comprise that “which is one, holy, universal and apostolic”, that takes away from the Catholic Church her structure (indeed the author does not hesitate to write: “the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”), the part that would remain Catholic would then be deprived of the structure which Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church! It would no longer be recognizable as the Church of Christ. Such affirmations are therefore very dangerous to the Faith.

It is true that, due to the Conciliar crisis, the four notes have been somehow darkened, less visible in the whole of the Church - e.g., so many priests and religious abandoning their most sacred vows has put a stain of the visibility of the note of holiness - thus Archbishop Lefebvre has not hesitated to say that these notes are more visible among the faithful and priests attached to Tradition. But never did he say that the Catholic Church was only that sound “part of the visible Church”! On the contrary, he applied to the Church, to the whole of the Church, what was true of Christ during his Passion: He was hardly recognizable as the Messiah at that moment, as was prophesized by Isaiah:

"Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not” (Is. 53:3).

Because of the modernist crisis, the Church passes as through her Passion, and is hardly recognizable. Thus it is very clear that for Archbishop Lefebvre the Catholic Church is the whole, not a mere part.

On sees in this false understanding of the distinction between Conciliar and Catholic, the doctrinal error which is in some at the root of their opposition to Bishop Fellay in this year 2012. Indeed, the author concludes: “the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”, which logically leads to the refusal of any regularization. One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing - indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent - the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the Pope wants to regularize the place of the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) – therefore against which one has not the right to resist, in as much as he gives it with no evil conditions and with the sufficient guarantees so that this order be solid.

At the root of this doctrinal error, there is the ignorance of the great principle of St. Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the wicked does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with their wickedness. Such an error leads to a “Catharist” notion of the Church, a Church of the pure, not infected by the Conciliar rot: such notion is simply not Catholic.

Kyrie eleison! May the Lord have mercy on those who could be tempted by such notions, and give them the grace to correct themselves, to return to the traditional notion of the Church, as the Church herself taught from the beginning, especially St. Cyprian against the Novatians and St. Augustine against the Donatists, both being authors of a book On the unity of the Church.

Some texts of Archbishop Lefebvre will illustrate this teaching

“Therefore we count on the support of your prayers and on your generosity, to continue in spite of the trials this priestly formation, indispensable for the life of the Church. It is not the Church nor the successor of Peter who strikes us, but rather men of the Church imbued with liberal errors, occupying high positions in the Church and profiting of their power to obliterate the past of the Church and to establish a new Church which has nothing of Catholic." (Letter to Friends and Benefactors of September 9, 1975)

In other words, those striking Archbishop Lefebvre were truly “men of the Church” truly “occupying high position in the Church”, but were acting against the Society of St. Pius X, not as “successor of Peter”, but rather as “imbued with liberal errors.”

"The Church is not ecumenical, much less liberal ecumenical, the Church is missionary. That is what I never ceased to repeat in my letter to Cardinal Seper, because he was asking some small precisions on facts, on our obedience, on our submission to the Holy Father, and such matters. I think that it was necessary to address the matter from much higher, because these are profound and very elevated reasons that prevent us from being fully obedient to the Pope and the Roman congregations. These are excessively important reasons. It is the whole new orientation of the Church, which is no longer a Catholic orientation, which is not the orientation of the Catholic Church. There is a very great difference between the missionary Church and the ecumenical Church. The missionary Church is that one truth-bearer, knowing that she possesses the truth in herself and bringing it to others to convert them. Her goal is conversion. On the other hand, ecumenism’s goal is to find the truth in the errors and practically putting oneself on the level of the errors, putting the whole truth on level with error, and thus embracing errors. And this is absolutely inconceivable. It is the destruction of the truth of the Church. We cannot admit this. Now all the reforms, all what they want us to accept, by the suppression of the seminary, the suppression of the Fraternity, by the penalties imposed on us, the goal, the intention is always to make us accept all that the Council has done and all what was done after the Council, that is this new Conciliar Church, which is not the Catholic Church. This new Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church because of its ecumenism. It considers error with the same respect as truth: you are in error, you are as worthy as those who are in the truth." (Spiritual conference at Econe, 13 March 1978)

The two italicized passages here show very well that what Archbishop Lefebvre understood by “this new Conciliar Church” was precisely “the whole new orientation of the Church”, not a separate structure.

This Conciliar Church… [is] following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy… It is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world! … That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority… in the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible… This is why I sent a letter to the pope, saying to him very clearly: We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.” (Sermon of the Episcopal Consecrations, 30 June 1988)

One sees clearly that, in the most solemn moment of his opposition to this conciliar Church, Archbishop Lefebvre meant by this expression the spirit of the council, spirit of Assisi… which reigns in Rome… [i.e.,] in the minds of the Roman authorities, i.e., in the mind of the men of the hierarchy of the Roman Church, which is the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre was always absolutely opposed to this new spirit, which is not a Catholic spirit; but never did he consider the Church as split between a rotten part and a Catholic part, reducing the Catholic Church to a mere “part of the visible Church”.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
If nothing else good comes from the split of Bishop Williamson from the Fraternity, the fact that there is a debate centring on ecclesiology is very, very, welcome.

Interestingly, Fr. Laisney thinks that "sedevacantism" is the theory held by Fr. Cekada (i.e. that the hierarchy is extinct).

Quote:
On the contrary, does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church and the visible Church? Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.


This is also the reason that Fr. Guerard des Lauriers developed his Thesis de Cassiciacum. He realised that any theory which implies or asserts a vacant hierarchy is unorthodox. We really need to get the word out that non-Guerardian sedevacantism is not to be identified with Cekadaism. One benefit of making this clear will be to assist in clarifying Archbishop Lefebvre's thought. He did not think that if he judged that Paul VI or JPII were not pope, he would have to believe that the hierarchy is extinct. The question for SSPX thinkers such as Fr. Laisney, is why the Archbishop openly speculated that he might reject the claims of these men, if to do so was to adopt a heresy?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:20 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Some comments on Fr. Laisney's thoughts.

Quote:
And the great danger of such an affirmation is that the limit of the Catholic Church becomes practically invisible.


The visibility of the Church does not consist in her having limits or edges which are always perfectly clear, as if she were a piece of paper or a stone. She is a social body consisting of men joined, under Christ our Head, by moral bonds. It is therefore necessarily the case that there are men about whom it is difficult to verify whether these bonds remain intact, and the very existence of such men makes the concrete boundaries of the Church uncertain. This does not make the Church less visible, any more than an army would become invisible as soon as it became mingled with a foreign army on a battlefield. Relative obscurity is not invisibility.

The visible unity of the Church is centred on the bonds which unite men to each other in common membership. St Robert Bellarmine explains,

"The Church is a definite society, not of angels, or of spirits, but of men. Therefore it cannot be called a human society unless bound together by external and visible signs. How could it be a society unless those who belong to it recognised each other as members? And being men, they have no other means of mutual recognition than the sensible and external bonds by which the society is united." (Controversies).

The Church has two bonds of unity, faith and charity. These are produced, fostered, and protected by the third element in her unity, the principle of unity, the hierarchy, especially the pope.

So the unity of the Church is threefold, faith, charity, and government. Two bonds, one principle.

Once the nature of the Church's visible unity is grasped, the reality that the New Church hierarchy acts as a solvent on the unity of faith and of charity presents a striking problem. This is the problem grappled with by traditional Catholic thinkers for the past fifty years, including Archbishop Lefebvre.

Fr. Laisney is, unfortunately, stepping around the problem.

Quote:
The author thinks he sufficiently affirms the visibility of the Catholic Church by writing:

"But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions."

The error of such a phrase is to fail to grasp the true meaning of the affirmation “the Catholic Church is visible.” When the Church teaches this truth - e.g., Pius XII in Mystici Corporis - it does not consider the Catholic Church as a species within a genus (which is the relation between lions and animals) as if he were saying nothing else than anyone could see people called Catholics as they could see people called Anglicans, Orthodox, Episcopalians, etc, as if visible Church was a genus within which one species would be the Catholic Church.


The point Bishop Williamson is making is confused and confusing.

A better argument would be to point out that the genus is not "Church" but "visible entity claiming to be the Church". In other words, just because something visible claims to be the Church, it doesn't mean that it is the Church. But the Catholic Church is indeed visible, as visible as the Conciliar Church or the Anglican Church. But that doesn't mean she is as obvious as she was in, say, 1950. Her visibility is objectively always a fact; the difficulty that men have in clearly delineating her limits in any given era varies considerably. She may be eclipsed, yet she remains exactly what she was, and precisely where she was, during the ecplise, as she proves every time she re-emerges from behind whatever is obscuring her.

Neither of these men has a clear grasp of the issues; neither is able to explain Archbishop Lefebvre's thought. I say that this is because Archbishop Lefebvre studied ecclesiology prior to the Council under "ultramontane" (i.e. orthodox, Roman) theologians, and neither Fr. Laisney nor Bishop Williamson has the same theological foundation.

One final point for now. Both men speak of the Conciliar Church as a tendency, a disease, which afflicts Catholics. They say that it is not a social body separate from the Catholic Church. They avoid one very striking fact: The Conciliar Church has its own official worship which is objectively sinful and must be avoided by Catholics. So we are not discussing a situation, such as the Arian crisis, where there are, apart from the open heretics who always exist, a mingled group consisting of clear Catholics and some Catholics confused about what the Church teaches, some of whom may be truly Catholics and some not, all sharing the same worship. No, the confusion exists, but there's another giant factor which cannot be ignored: the Conciliarists have gone into schism by adopting a new rite of worship, causing essential disunity with the Catholics, a disunity which is manifest. To speak of visible unity and yet mean a "unity" which includes open heretics practicing false worship which faithful Catholics will have no part in, is to speak nonsense.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:56 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Quote:
Then what is the Conciliar Church? This expressed was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really. It signified a new spirit, new principles, but not a new structure, nor a separate hierarchy and separate faithful. This new spirit causes the members infected by it in the Church to rot in as much as they are infected by it; it is like a virus in the Mystical Body of Christ: some cells are entirely corrupted, others only partially infected, some more some less, and few are exempt from it. It is true to say that this spirit is not Catholic; it is a spirit of rupture, a revolutionary spirit, it is 1789 in the Church.

But this spirit does not constitute a separate Church; it infects more or less the members of the Catholic Church. The separation between the sound members and the infected members is not visible, from the very fact that some members are only partially infected. It is like the separation between good and evil within the Church: the limit is within each member himself, since nobody is perfect here below! It is only at the end of the world that the separation shall be achieved, not by human judgment, but by the Judgment of Christ Himself, the Sovereign Judge, true God and true man. This does not mean that the infection is not visible: as evil members are visible in the Church (and scandals have not lacked after Vatican II), so also this conciliar infection is visible, especially in those who are fully infected: modernist theologians, modernist priests’ petitions in Austria… One sees these false principles at work in the practical ecumenical meetings (Assisi, concelebrations, visits to Synagogues, kissing of the Koran…)

These false principles do not constitute a separate Church, not even a distinct part of a whole which the visible Church would be.


So much for Mystici Corporis Christi, which Fr. Laisney has quoted earlier. Here is the doctrine of that encyclical on the relevant question: “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

And here is a question for Fr. Laisney, whose argument appears to be that there are no manifest heretics in positions of authority in the Conciliar Church; not one. Are there any open heretics amongst the bishops? And if he replies that yes, there are some, then he gives away the whole case, and in doing so, returns to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, from whose theology he has departed radically.

As for Mgr. Benelli, who coined the term "Conciliar Church", here is Archbishop Lefebvre:

"All these who cooperate for the application of this radical change, who accept and adhere to this new conciliar Church, as it was designated by Mgr. Benelli in the letter he addressed in the name of the Holy Father, enter into the schism."

Anti-sedevacantist polemicists who believe that they are students of Archbishop Lefebvre, always deprecate the great man by ascribing to the heat of the moment the most serious and penetrating things that he said.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Quote:
As for Mgr. Benelli, who coined the term "Conciliar Church", here is Archbishop Lefebvre:

"All these who cooperate for the application of this radical change, who accept and adhere to this new conciliar Church, as it was designated by Mgr. Benelli in the letter he addressed in the name of the Holy Father, enter into the schism."


Just an observation, but don't all the Bishops claiming jurisdiction accept the new form of worship and new catechism? If so, doesn't that play right into the "extinction" theory?


Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:42 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Robert, none of the Eastern bishops have adopted the Novus Ordo Missae, obviously, for the simple reason that it is exclusively a Latin Rite replacement without any equivalent in the Oriental Rites.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Quote:
Robert, none of the Eastern bishops have adopted the Novus Ordo Missae, obviously, for the simple reason that it is exclusively a Latin Rite replacement without any equivalent in the Oriental Rites.



Yes, but the Oriental Rites do accept Vatican II.

Me thinks it is time for a serious effort from those educated leading sede's to work on a paper on ecclesiology. I recall John Daly saying this situation cannot go on much longer without having to throw out a dogma or two, he stated this view about 12 years ago.

Perhpas he has changes his mind, it would be good to hear from him on this topic.

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Hi Vincent,

Like yourself, I always like to hear what John Daly has to say and I miss his active participation in discussions. I am still holding out for him to finish the thread he started in 2006 that got derailed on communicatio in sacris. :)

But, on your point of the Eastern Bishops, you say, "the oriental rites do accept Vatican II," but not defining what you mean by that. The rites cannot accept anything, so you must mean the bishops, but you have not proven that the Eastern bishops accept the heresies of Vatican II.

How many Catholics, may believe they accept Vatican II, but only do so because they believe it can be interpreted in a Catholic way? Many Catholics mistakenly believe that they must accept Vatican II in order to be Catholics, since they believe it came from the Church, but at the same time perform mental gymnastics to keep their Faith and reconcile it with tradition. In doing this, they keep themselves from heresy and remain Catholic, but they are inconsistent and illogical, or choose to remain ignorant about the whole thing not knowing how to address it.

It may be that many Eastern bishops still have the Faith and have not formed any heretical ideas. They would be valid bishops due to their ancient rite, they would have the faith, and due to supplied jurisdiction they would have their office. It is possible at least for some of them.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:35 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Mike posted :
Quote:
But, on your point of the Eastern Bishops, you say, "the oriental rites do accept Vatican II," but not defining what you mean by that. The rites cannot accept anything, so you must mean the bishops, but you have not proven that the Eastern bishops accept the heresies of Vatican II.



Mike, it has been a long time, glad you replied.

I didn't think in the context I was using the term" Oriental Rites" that I would need to define the term. I was indeed refering to the Churches these Rites represent i.e. their Bishops and clergy, not their Liturgies. Of which, those in union with Rome attended, participated and signed the Vatican II documents. Regarding their liturgies many have " reformed" the rubrics, however, none to the extent that the novus ordo did.

Regarding your comment that I have not proven they accept the heresies of Vatican II, I didnt think I had too.

Do you know of any of these Rites bishops- Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Catholic COpts, Maronites, Catholic Syrian, Ruthenians ( to name a few) that are actively denouncing Vatican II, and/or Benedict XVI's actions and theology?

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:35 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Mike posted :
Quote:
But, on your point of the Eastern Bishops, you say, "the oriental rites do accept Vatican II," but not defining what you mean by that. The rites cannot accept anything, so you must mean the bishops, but you have not proven that the Eastern bishops accept the heresies of Vatican II.



Mike, it has been a long time, glad you replied.

I didn't think in the context I was using the term" Oriental Rites" that I would need to define the term. I was indeed refering to the Churches these Rites represent i.e. their Bishops and clergy, not their Liturgies. Of which, those in union with Rome attended, participated and signed the Vatican II documents. Regarding their liturgies many have " reformed" the rubrics, however, none to the extent that the novus ordo did.

Regarding your comment that I have not proven they accept the heresies of Vatican II, I didnt think I had too.

Do you know of any of these Rites bishops- Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Catholic COpts, Maronites, Catholic Syrian, Ruthenians ( to name a few) that are actively denouncing Vatican II, and/or Benedict XVI's actions and theology?

In Xto,
Vincent


Pax Christi to you as well Vincent and Merry Christmas! It has been a long time and it is good to "see" you again on this forum.

To clarify, I was calling for more specific definitions as the entire rite of a Church is not the same as a bishop. Let's skip that point and move to the crux of your statements.

As you must know, the signing of the documents is not proof of heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents but was not a heretic among many others. There are defenses of the signatories of the documents against heresy.

There have been "reforms" in the Eastern rites, but none to my knowledge which would invalidate them or include heretical ideas in their rites.

Regarding an accusation of heresy against the bishops of the Eastern Rites, on the contrary, the obligation is with the accuser. If you wish to demonstrate that any of these bishops are heretics, the accusation and the presentation of proof of that fact resides with you. You may argue that they may be suspect of heresy for remaining in communion with known heretics, but that is not absolute proof that they have defected from the Faith.

As with the issue of the signing of the documents of Vatican II, there are many reasons why an Eastern Rite bishop may remain in communion with Benedict, other than agreeing with heresy. They may be ignorant of the post Vatican II teaching, or, they may understand it, but believe it is not binding on them, or they may think there is a way of reconciling it with past teaching, (Brian Harrison method). But, for whatever reason, as long as they are not publicly adhering to a heresy, they must be considered Catholic.

The fact that they remain in communion with Benedict does not in and of itself prove that they are heretics. If they are not heretics, then it logically follows that they must still be Catholic. If they are Catholic, then logically it follows that they have not lost their office.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:12 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Mike- you seem to be making lots of assumptions. Regarding accusing one of heresy I simply posted this-

Quote:
Yes, but the Oriental Rites do accept Vatican II.


Now those Rites in Union with Rome do accept Vatican II, you SEEM to deny , so I have asked you to provide some examples.

The Pope is also the Patriarch of the West, so Western Rite bishops have always been more " under the popes thumb", so to speak.The Eastern Rites do have more local autonomy, since they have Patricarch's, bishops, clergy and their own Canon Law, liturgies, and traditions. But I do not know of one that is fighting the fight against the teachings and reforms of Vatican II. And on this point, since you disagree, I have asked you to name a few, if any, that are indeed engaged in this battle.

As far as I can tell only the Eastern Rites that have been seperated from Rome since 1054ad are spekaing out against Vatican II. But they also speak out against Trent, and Vatican I.

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:36 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Mike- you seem to be making lots of assumptions. Regarding accusing one of heresy I simply posted this-

Quote:
Yes, but the Oriental Rites do accept Vatican II.


Now those Rites in Union with Rome do accept Vatican II, you SEEM to deny , so I have asked you to provide some examples.

The Pope is also the Patriarch of the West, so Western Rite bishops have always been more " under the popes thumb", so to speak.The Eastern Rites do have more local autonomy, since they have Patricarch's, bishops, clergy and their own Canon Law, liturgies, and traditions. But I do not know of one that is fighting the fight against the teachings and reforms of Vatican II. And on this point, since you disagree, I have asked you to name a few, if any, that are indeed engaged in this battle.

As far as I can tell only the Eastern Rites that have been seperated from Rome since 1054ad are spekaing out against Vatican II. But they also speak out against Trent, and Vatican I.

In Xto,
Vincent


Dear Vincent,

I am not making any assumptions, I just do not know what you mean when you say "they accept Vatican II." I suppose we should have defined that from the start.

I am not aware of any Eastern bishop denouncing the heresies of Vatican II, but, I am not sure what point you want to draw from that.

In order for us to discuss this I think we should define a few things first. Do you agree with the following, and if not please show where you disagree.

1. It is possible for a bishop to have signed the documents of Vatican II and not be a heretic.
2. It is possible for a bishop who is misguided on the theology of Vatican II to think he is accepting it while keeping the Faith.
3. It is possible for a bishop to accept the Vatican II "popes," and still have the Faith.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:42 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Mike,

I asked you a simple question - " I have asked you to name a few, if any, that are indeed engaged in this battle."

Please name a one.......

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:48 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vincent,

I answered you, my friend, I stated in my last post "I am not aware of any Eastern bishop denouncing the heresies of Vatican II." Does this sufficiently answer your question? If you think that this is not specific enough, let me use your wording, "I am right now not aware of any bishop of the Eastern rite engaged in the battle against the heresies of Vatican II and the Vatican II popes."

Now, can you answer my question?

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:23 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Mike asked -
Quote:

1. It is possible for a bishop to have signed the documents of Vatican II and not be a heretic.
2. It is possible for a bishop who is misguided on the theology of Vatican II to think he is accepting it while keeping the Faith.
3. It is possible for a bishop to accept the Vatican II "popes," and still have the Faith.

_________________



I am surprised your askign thease questions, 15 years and counting on forum and emails lists.. I am sure you know the answers to these.

1. I would say for the time it occured, yes, but after time and reflection one would look for the reaction of those bishops that saw where Vatican II was taking the church, and thus reconsider their approvals. Examples; Archbishop Lefebvre, Casto-Mayer and Bishop Thuc. As noted, you and I do not know of any Eastern Rite Patriarch or Bishop renoucning their approvals i.e signing of the documents in question.
2. Layman yes..... Bishops no.... Also Archbishop Lefebvre noted- the novus ordo over time destroys ones Faith.
3. Yes, with reservations.

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
Robert, none of the Eastern bishops have adopted the Novus Ordo Missae, obviously, for the simple reason that it is exclusively a Latin Rite replacement without any equivalent in the Oriental Rites.


Yes, obviously, yet they are not a different Church (even if they were made to "feel" that way), they are merely a different rite in the same Church. These bishops are not actively resisting Vatican II. Are they not assumed to be cooperating with this radical change? Is their silence consent? Or do we say they are so different that their voice doesn't matter at all?

Quote:
As for Mgr. Benelli, who coined the term "Conciliar Church", here is Archbishop Lefebvre:

"All these who cooperate for the application of this radical change, who accept and adhere to this new conciliar Church, as it was designated by Mgr. Benelli in the letter he addressed in the name of the Holy Father, enter into the schism."


Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Mike asked -
Quote:

1. It is possible for a bishop to have signed the documents of Vatican II and not be a heretic.
2. It is possible for a bishop who is misguided on the theology of Vatican II to think he is accepting it while keeping the Faith.
3. It is possible for a bishop to accept the Vatican II "popes," and still have the Faith.

_________________



I am surprised your askign thease questions, 15 years and counting on forum and emails lists.. I am sure you know the answers to these.

1. I would say for the time it occured, no, but after time and reflection one would look for the reaction of those bishops that saw where Vatican II was taking the church, and thus reconsider their approvals. Examples; Archbishop Lefebvre, Casto-Mayer and Bishop Thuc. As noted, you and I do not know of any Eastern Rite Patriarch or Bishop renoucning their approvals i.e signing of the documents in question.
2. Layman yes..... Bishops no.... Also Archbishop Lefebvre noted- the novus ordo over time destroys ones Faith.
3. Yes, with reservations.

In Xto,
Vincent


The questions are necessary to discover the root of our differences. I do know the answer to these questions, but I am asking you, because I trying to understand you on these matters. I asked the questions because I do not believe you have thought this through, and I am trying to provoke thought on this.

A bishop can only lose his office for very specific reasons: heresy, schism, apostasy, transfer, resignation.

Almost all of the bishops at the time of Vatican II signed the documents, including Lefebvre. His case alone shows that bishops could have signed the documents in good faith, and would not have been heretics.

In order to be a heretic, one must adhere to a heretical proposition while understanding the conflict between his view and the teaching of the Church.

There were certainly bishops in the 1970's who still had the Faith, who accepted the anti-popes, and who were not "battling" against Vatican II.

A bishop cannot lose his office for heresy when he is not a heretic. A faulty understanding of Vatican II and its heresies does not make one a heretic. You may argue that a public adherence of Vatican II is grounds for suspecting the bishop of heresy, but there could be other reasons, not heresy, that cause the bishop to remain in communion with the anti-popes, and not denounce Vatican II.

To conclude: Every bishop from Vatican II forward, must be dealt with on a case by case basis, using the standards that the theologians gave on whether they still possess their office or not. Any attempt at grouping them into one large body who have all lost their offices due to not condemning Vatican II or being in communion with undeclared heretics is erroneous.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Mike wrote:
To conclude: Every bishop from Vatican II forward, must be dealt with on a case by case basis, using the standards that the theologians gave on whether they still possess their office or not. Any attempt at grouping them into one large body who have all lost their offices due to not condemning Vatican II or being in communion with undeclared heretics is erroneous.


Dear Mike,

we have to discuss of this issue some time ago. I do not want to reopen the controversy, but only to mention a further aspect of the problem. Indeed, it is true what you said about the common teaching of catholic theologians by which there will be always in the world at least two bishops with apostolic power of jurisdiction until the end of the time. We know that they are, even if we do not know where they are. But it is as much true that, according to another common sentence of the theologians, the true successors of the Apostles are where is the true catholic doctrine. Take for example what says Fr. Pesch in his Institutiones Propedeuticae ad Sacram Theologiam: “Triplex haec Apostolicitas (nempe originis, successionis et doctrinae) continetur in sola legitima successione Apostolica. Hoc est argumentum S. Patrum: “ubi sunt legitimi successores apostolorum ibi est vera doctrina et vera Eccl. Christi”". And Fr. Lagrange remember: "Christus voluit ut sua Ecclesia esset Apostolica, scil. ut esset semper eadem societatis ac ea quam fundaverunt Apostoli. Agitur de legitima, publica et numquam interrupta pastorum ab Apost. successione in identitate professionis fidei, sacramentorum et regiminis” (cf. De Revelatione).
By consequence, to think that the bishops which approved, even in good faith, the doctrines of Vatican II, to think that they had or they have the apostolic jurisdiction and conserve the authority of bishops is equal to deny the elementary truth mentioned above. These "bishops" could have conserved the catholic faith in their hearts as private persons, but it is impossible that they were successors of the Apostles under the aspect of the power of jurisdiction, because they did not profess the catholic doctrine. Otherwise, we should to conclude that the true successors of the Apostles did not profess catholic doctrine. This means also that the lost of the authority of a bishop can be determined by a further reason than "heresy, schism, apostasy, transfer, resignation".

A cordial greeting.


Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Mike dogmatically posted :)

Quote:
To conclude: Every bishop from Vatican II forward, must be dealt with on a case by case basis, using the standards that the theologians gave on whether they still possess their office or not. Any attempt at grouping them into one large body who have all lost their offices due to not condemning Vatican II or being in communion with undeclared heretics is erroneous.


In the present day, so many years removed from Vatican II, I respectfully disagree with you Mike. All I have ever seen, practice the new religion, some in a more conservative manner, others out right liberal. ALL , not many, adhere to the springtime of Vatican II.

One example , here in Seattle, we had a “ hardnosed, traditional minded bishop” selected, he sent word before his installment as Archbishop that he was all ready in contact with the FSSP to have a full fledged traditional parish in Seattle. The day after his installment, he went directly to the largest Jewish congregation and joined in a common prayer service at the synagogue. And didn’t miss an opportunity to spread the ecumenical messages of Vatican II.


In charity, we must try our best to not use the word heresy, however, heresy can be determined by “ actions, silence, omissions, gestures “ …..

If I ever see a novus ordo bishop start to act like a SSPX bishop then we might some have confidence they might possess “ ordinary jurisdiction”, if of course, they were not consecrated bishop in the new rite. Not to mention the other problem of " who sent them" :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:20 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Mike dogmatically posted :)

Quote:
To conclude: Every bishop from Vatican II forward, must be dealt with on a case by case basis, using the standards that the theologians gave on whether they still possess their office or not. Any attempt at grouping them into one large body who have all lost their offices due to not condemning Vatican II or being in communion with undeclared heretics is erroneous.


In the present day, so many years removed from Vatican II, I respectfully disagree with you Mike. All I have ever seen, practice the new religion, some in a more conservative manner, others out right liberal. ALL , not many, adhere to the springtime of Vatican II.

One example , here in Seattle, we had a “ hardnosed, traditional minded bishop” selected, he sent word before his installment as Archbishop that he was all ready in contact with the FSSP to have a full fledged traditional parish in Seattle. The day after his installment, he went directly to the largest Jewish congregation and joined in a common prayer service at the synagogue. And didn’t miss an opportunity to spread the ecumenical messages of Vatican II.


In charity, we must try our best to not use the word heresy, however, heresy can be determined by “ actions, silence, omissions, gestures “ …..

If I ever see a novus ordo bishop start to act like a SSPX bishop then we might some have confidence they might possess “ ordinary jurisdiction”, if of course, they were not consecrated bishop in the new rite. Not to mention the other problem of " who sent them" :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Vincent,

Pax Christi to you as well!

We are not talking about one diocese or even many in this discussion, or even those of the entire Roman Rite, or in terms of time one year or even a decade. We are talking about every bishop in the world from the beginning of Vatican II until now.

I believe you could form a good case of heresy against many of them, demonstrating that they have defected and have publicly embraced heretical ideas. You may even make a case against 99 percent of them! But, and this is crucial, is that these anti-popes have not been declared to be outside the Church, so adherence to them is not proof of a defection of Faith.

Some, or at least at a minimum, one bishop in the world who is a member of the hierarchy must have the Faith. Do you accept the fact that the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time? From what you are saying, it seems that you are not clear about the Church's teaching on this.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:55 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:
Mike wrote:
To conclude: Every bishop from Vatican II forward, must be dealt with on a case by case basis, using the standards that the theologians gave on whether they still possess their office or not. Any attempt at grouping them into one large body who have all lost their offices due to not condemning Vatican II or being in communion with undeclared heretics is erroneous.


Dear Mike,

we have to discuss of this issue some time ago. I do not want to reopen the controversy, but only to mention a further aspect of the problem. Indeed, it is true what you said about the common teaching of catholic theologians by which there will be always in the world at least two bishops with apostolic power of jurisdiction until the end of the time. We know that they are, even if we do not know where they are. But it is as much true that, according to another common sentence of the theologians, the true successors of the Apostles are where is the true catholic doctrine. Take for example what says Fr. Pesch in his Institutiones Propedeuticae ad Sacram Theologiam: “Triplex haec Apostolicitas (nempe originis, successionis et doctrinae) continetur in sola legitima successione Apostolica. Hoc est argumentum S. Patrum: “ubi sunt legitimi successores apostolorum ibi est vera doctrina et vera Eccl. Christi”". And Fr. Lagrange remember: "Christus voluit ut sua Ecclesia esset Apostolica, scil. ut esset semper eadem societatis ac ea quam fundaverunt Apostoli. Agitur de legitima, publica et numquam interrupta pastorum ab Apost. successione in identitate professionis fidei, sacramentorum et regiminis” (cf. De Revelatione).
By consequence, to think that the bishops which approved, even in good faith, the doctrines of Vatican II, to think that they had or they have the apostolic jurisdiction and conserve the authority of bishops is equal to deny the elementary truth mentioned above. These "bishops" could have conserved the catholic faith in their hearts as private persons, but it is impossible that they were successors of the Apostles under the aspect of the power of jurisdiction, because they did not profess the catholic doctrine. Otherwise, we should to conclude that the true successors of the Apostles did not profess catholic doctrine. This means also that the lost of the authority of a bishop can be determined by a further reason than "heresy, schism, apostasy, transfer, resignation".

A cordial greeting.


Dear Gabriele,

A cordial greeting to you as well and I hope all is well!

Let me ask you something: Do you have proof that every bishop who has a lawful claim to jurisdiction has failed to profess the Faith? Secondly, and we have discussed this previously, it is not for unauthorized Catholics to create a new teaching in theology. The theologians tell us how a bishop can lose his jurisdiction, and you are creating a new criterion for losing jurisdiction.

I think it is clear that the only relevant criteria given here is heresy. Have these bishops defected from the Faith? You seem to think that they all have or at least you are implying that. But, you have admitted in the past that you have not personally investigated each case, so you are relying only on an assumption, not facts.

As Vincent correctly stated from his own experience, the Novus Ordo bishops appear to have defected from the Faith, but it is an assumption that all of them that are alive including the bishops of Pius XII and John XXIII have all defected from the Faith.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:09 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Mike wrote:
Let me ask you something: Do you have proof that every bishop who has a lawful claim to jurisdiction has failed to profess the Faith?


No, dear Mike, I have not. But that's not the point. I know "only" that who has approved the doctrines of Vatican II, even in good faith or only externally, has failed to profess the Faith. These "bishops" cannot have the apostolic authority.

Mike wrote:
Secondly, and we have discussed this previously, it is not for unauthorized Catholics to create a new teaching in theology. The theologians tell us how a bishop can lose his jurisdiction, and you are creating a new criterion for losing jurisdiction.


Ok, Mike. Then we can put the problem in the following terms: the bishops who have approved the doctrines of Vatican II have ceased to profess catholic doctrine of the Faith. At the same time, theologians teach us that the true successors of the Apostles are where it is the true catholic doctrine. How can we save this elementary truth and the fact that the bishops mentioned above have the apostolic authority, if they do not profess catholic doctrine? What's your answer, Mike?

Mike wrote:
I think it is clear that the only relevant criteria given here is heresy. Have these bishops defected from the Faith? You seem to think that they all have or at least you are implying that. But, you have admitted in the past that you have not personally investigated each case, so you are relying only on an assumption, not facts.

As Vincent correctly stated from his own experience, the Novus Ordo bishops appear to have defected from the Faith, but it is an assumption that all of them that are alive including the bishops of Pius XII and John XXIII have all defected from the Faith.


Dear Mike, in my speech I pointed out that "it is true what you said about the common teaching of catholic theologians by which there will be always in the world at least two bishops with apostolic power of jurisdiction until the end of the time. We know that they are, even if we do not know where they are". Furthermore, here the problem is not properly the defection from the Faith, because this expression can include both the internal forum, whether the external forum. The problem concerns the profession of the Faith. And it is not an assumption, but a certitude that the "bishops" who approved or approve the doctrines of Vatican II they do not profess the Faith.

A cordial greeting.


Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:41 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:
I know "only" that who has approved the doctrines of Vatican II, even in good faith or only externally, has failed to profess the Faith. These "bishops" cannot have the apostolic authority.


Dear Gabriele and Vince,

There appears to be an undefined proposition here, replete with multiple ambiguities: "approved the doctrines of Vatican II." What does that mean, exactly? What are these doctrines, and in what way are they approved by individual bishops? Vince gave us one example, from Seattle, and I agree, as I think Mike would, that such a man is gravely suspect of heresy from his actions. But I know of several bishops here in Australia that would not have prayed in a synagogue, so what else have we got?

The phrase, "doctrines of Vatican II" is ambiguous: does it mean the errors that we can see were expressed in the texts? Or does it mean the working out of those texts into their full horror, as we saw with Assisi, or with that bishop in Seattle? And "approved" is ambiguous: we see that right here in this thread, where Vince meant by that word the mere failure to "battle" against the errors of Vatican II. Is it true and sufficient to say that silence equals consent, in the particular circumstances of Vatican II and its aftermath, where certain errors and tendencies appeared to have the approval of Rome itself?

Finally, the phrase carries the hidden assumption that all of the errors of Vatican II (whether we are speaking of the texts, or the errors somewhat hidden in them which flowered later) were opposed to dogma, and were therefore heresies. They weren't.

Did Cardinal Siri approve of the errors of Vatican II? Evidently not. Did he "battle" against them? Not very manifestly, I'd say. Yet I think he did, in what he thought was the best way he could. His judgement isn't ours, but does that make him a non-Catholic? Is it true, as Gabriele is saying, that Cardinal Siri did not profess the faith? If so, precisely in what respect is that true? What dogma did he doubt or deny?

By the way, I'm very sympathetic with Archbishop Thuc, but the idea that he battled the errors of Vatican II is entirely new to me. To my mind, he's an example of somebody who did pretty much nothing for Tradition and yet one would be loth to declare him a heretic...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

Mike dogmatically posted :)

Quote:
To conclude: Every bishop from Vatican II forward, must be dealt with on a case by case basis, using the standards that the theologians gave on whether they still possess their office or not. Any attempt at grouping them into one large body who have all lost their offices due to not condemning Vatican II or being in communion with undeclared heretics is erroneous.

I would tend to agree with at least the basic premise of Mike's statement, Vince.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
In the present day, so many years removed from Vatican II, I respectfully disagree with you Mike. All I have ever seen, practice the new religion, some in a more conservative manner, others out right liberal. ALL , not many, adhere to the springtime of Vatican II.

And I agree with this also, Vince. Yet there are details that are less certain.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
One example , here in Seattle, we had a “ hardnosed, traditional minded bishop” selected,

Who was that, Vince? I have not kept track. If you mean that rotten Hunthausen, I would most certainly never call him "hard-nosed, traditional-minded". One of his first posts was to the Diocese of Helena, Montana. I am from Montana and lived in that Diocese for much of my formative and adult life. I met him personally sometime in the 1960s at the local Diocesan rectory, St. Anthony's, which I used to visit regularly. He looked at me as though he hated my guts. I was astonished. Furthermore, the Diocese of Helena, Montana has "always" been one of the most liberal dioceses in the nation.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
he sent word before his installment as Archbishop that he was all ready in contact with the FSSP to have a full fledged traditional parish in Seattle.

Humph! "Traditional Parish" my eye! The FSSP, notwithstanding the fact that some of its members may be conservative, is nothing more than a "Vatican-approved" division of the Novus Ordo in traditional trappings, all of whose "bishops" are patently invalidly "ordained", and all of whose young priests, IMHO, are also invalidly ordained.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
The day after his installment, he went directly to the largest Jewish congregation and joined in a common prayer service at the synagogue. And didn’t miss an opportunity to spread the ecumenical messages of Vatican II.

Sounds just like Raymond Hunthausen.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
In charity, we must try our best to not use the word heresy, however, heresy can be determined by “ actions, silence, omissions, gestures “ …..

And there is, of course, the requirement for any Catholic to recognize and avoid such, despite that fact not yet having been "declared" to be so by proper Church authority...

Vince Sheridan wrote:
If I ever see a novus ordo bishop start to act like a SSPX bishop then we might some have confidence they might possess “ ordinary jurisdiction”, if of course, they were not consecrated bishop in the new rite. Not to mention the other problem of " who sent them" :)

Yes.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
As usual, John, your good common-sense, coupled with your Sensus Catholicus comes to the fore.

Good on ya!

I really do wish Gabriele could see himself clear to stop constantly proposing his own personal interpretations of the statements of the approved theologians as dogma. I find his ramblings to be more than a little confused and annoying.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

Ken- the Seattle Bishop I was refering too was Burnett ( now recently retired) his replacement is full blown novus ordo, as was really Burnett.

Mike posted -
Quote:
Some, or at least at a minimum, one bishop in the world who is a member of the hierarchy must have the Faith. Do you accept the fact that the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time? From what you are saying, it seems that you are not clear about the Church's teaching on this.


It appears all the Pius XIIth and John 23rd bishops that are still alive are retired.....I don't think you and John accept their retirement without a pope, but they do, and have sullied off to the golden years of blissful retirement.

This is why, with the passage of time, me thinks we are in great need of a in-depth study on ecclesiology.

And with the great passage of time since Vatican II, we do have the SSPX behaving with the sense of some kind of " ordinary jurisdiction".. i.e. the anullment tribunal.....

John- the times I have had the privilege to visit Australia I did witness 2 novus ordo mass's while I was visiting the local Cathedrals... both ( Melbourne and Brisbane) were a novus ordo mass like everywhere else I have seen in the world.
The Lords Supper...

In Xto
Vincent


Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Hi John,

Just curious about which Aussie bishops you think would not mess around in synagogues?

And do you draw any broader conclusion about a man from his supposed reluctance to do so?

Personally I can only think of bishops who wouldn't pray in synagogues due to extreme age ( eg the retired bishop of Wilcania Forbes) or lack of opportunity ( not ever so many synagogues in Ganmain!)

James


Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Ken- the Seattle Bishop I was referring to was Burnett (now recently retired) his replacement is full blown novus ordo, as was really Burnett.

Thank you, Vince. As I said, I have not kept track...

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Mike posted -
Quote:
Some, or at least at a minimum, one bishop in the world who is a member of the hierarchy must have the Faith. Do you accept the fact that the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time? From what you are saying, it seems that you are not clear about the Church's teaching on this.

It appears all the Pius XIIth and John 23rd bishops that are still alive are retired.....I don't think you and John accept their retirement without a pope, but they do, and have sullied off to the golden years of blissful retirement.

Vince, I don't think your answer directly addresses Mike's question: I agree with Mike's first statement in the above, and his question to you. I am not sure I agree with his last statement to you, knowing as I do, the depth of your sometimes unstated excellent understanding of Church Doctrine.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
This is why, with the passage of time, me thinks we are in great need of an in-depth study on ecclesiology.

Oh, I heartily agree with this statement!

Vince Sheridan wrote:
And with the great passage of time since Vatican II, we do have the SSPX behaving with the sense of some kind of " ordinary jurisdiction".. i.e. the annullment tribunal.....

Yes. I find their "we are the Catholic Church: none of the rest of you are unless you belong to our group..." attitude to be extremely condescending at the best, and extremely arrogant at the worst.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:19 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
James Francis wrote:
Hi John,

Just curious about which Aussie bishops you think would not mess around in synagogues?


None that I am aware of now, but I was thinking of Bishops Thomas of Geraldton, and Stewart of Bendigo (Sandhurst) - "retired" in 1979 and died in 1988. The point was actually about precision: if we are going to say "Bishop Blogg isn't a Catholic" then we have to have a case. If we are attempting to support the notion that every bishop has departed from Catholic unity then we have to be able to state a principle with its relevant factual data which applies universally.

James Francis wrote:
And do you draw any broader conclusion about a man from his supposed reluctance to do so?


No, although the two I named clearly remained Catholics. They were both along the lines of Cardinal Siri - adopted the Novus Ordo Missae and yet remained personally, manifestly, orthodox.

James Francis wrote:
Personally I can only think of bishops who wouldn't pray in synagogues due to extreme age ( eg the retired bishop of Wilcania Forbes) or lack of opportunity ( not ever so many synagogues in Ganmain!)

James


Sadly, that sounds about right. Still, the point isn't met by saying that we can't think of any whom we know to have remained Catholics up until now. We have to come up with something that would apply to all, ruling all outside the Church. And on this score, I think you'll find that in the Middle East there is plenty of "ecumenism" but visiting synagogues isn't commonly part of it. :)

The mention of Ganmain brings to the fore the lack of knowledge that most trads have of what is actually the case out there in Novus-land. The nuns there are are manifestly Catholics, yet they will assist at the Novus Ordo Missae when they have no alternative, which I understand is often. Few Australian trads, and probably virtually no overseas trads, would even have heard about that convent. Yet it's a Catholic convent. What do we have remaining in the East, if we can have pockets like that here in the West, where communications are so much better?

For the interest of others, the Dominican Sisters of Ganmain, NSW: http://users.dragnet.com.au/~veritas/

The Prioress is my father's cousin, Sister Mary Augustine Lane, so I know them well.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John,

I agree with you that Ganmain would obviously be a pocket of Catholicism ( I feel infinitely sorry for the nuns who have to make do with the NO pretty well permanently).

I would also include the Wagga seminary as a pocket of Catholicism- whatever case one can make for the Ganmain sisters remaining catholic can also be made for the men at the seminary and most of their professors.

Which leads me to wonder what the point of being a trad or a sedevacantist actually is? It's pretty inconvenient to have to drive hours to Mass on Sunday and when one considers that the sisters do jolly well with regular exposure to a Protestant, doubtfully valid mass, why fret about who the last pope was or what VII says...

There must be some benefit to accepting the sedevacantist thesis- what is it? :?


Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
Dear Gabriele and Vince,

There appears to be an undefined proposition here, replete with multiple ambiguities: "approved the doctrines of Vatican II." What does that mean, exactly? What are these doctrines, and in what way are they approved by individual bishops? Vince gave us one example, from Seattle, and I agree, as I think Mike would, that such a man is gravely suspect of heresy from his actions. But I know of several bishops here in Australia that would not have prayed in a synagogue, so what else have we got?

The phrase, "doctrines of Vatican II" is ambiguous: does it mean the errors that we can see were expressed in the texts? Or does it mean the working out of those texts into their full horror, as we saw with Assisi, or with that bishop in Seattle? And "approved" is ambiguous: we see that right here in this thread, where Vince meant by that word the mere failure to "battle" against the errors of Vatican II. Is it true and sufficient to say that silence equals consent, in the particular circumstances of Vatican II and its aftermath, where certain errors and tendencies appeared to have the approval of Rome itself?

Finally, the phrase carries the hidden assumption that all of the errors of Vatican II (whether we are speaking of the texts, or the errors somewhat hidden in them which flowered later) were opposed to dogma, and were therefore heresies. They weren't.


Dear John, I was speaking with Mike, that is a person for which Vatican II contains non-catholic doctrines and also heresies (for example Mike said: "... A faulty understanding of Vatican II and its heresies does not make one a heretic"). If for you Vatican II is orthodox under the aspect of the catholic Faith, there is no problem for me, this would be a your (erroneous) opinion. I have not intention to discuss of this. I give for granted, here, that the conciliar novelties they constitute an attack on the Catholic Faith. If you do not like the term "approve" take the term "promote", "defend", "profess", "propose", or what you prefer.

John Lane wrote:
Did Cardinal Siri approve of the errors of Vatican II? Evidently not.


Evidently yes. Indeed, it is widely known that Cardinal Siri said that the documents of Vatican II must be read in knee! Without distinction, because for Cardinal Siri the Vatican II did not contain errors or heresies. Thus, he peacefully professed the errors of Vatican II.

John Lane wrote:
Did he "battle" against them? Not very manifestly, I'd say. Yet I think he did, in what he thought was the best way he could. His judgement isn't ours, but does that make him a non-Catholic? Is it true, as Gabriele is saying, that Cardinal Siri did not profess the faith? If so, precisely in what respect is that true? What dogma did he doubt or deny?


Dear John, evidently you do not know what Cardinal Siri said of Vatican II and all his doctrines. And since you insist, I invite you to read, only for example, these words of Cardinal Siri on the Vatican II and his teachings:

Sempre ho insegnato e predicato che l’edizione tipica, ufficiale di quei decreti va letta in ginocchio. Pochi hanno difeso il Concilio come me. Ciò che ho sempre combattuto sono semmai gli stravolgimenti del Vaticano II. Così, nell’indice ufficiale dei concetti non troverà mai la voce “pluralismo teologico” che pure è uno dei cavalli di battaglia di chi si appella al Concilio” (from the interview to the review Jesus, January 1983).

[Translation of the highlighted words: "Few have defended the Council as me"].

"Concluso il Concilio, [the Cardinal Siri] accogliendo i suoi fedeli nella cattedrale di Genova, si domanda: «è stato positivo il Concilio?». E risponde: «Senza dubbio». Egli, quindi, indica le varie ragioni della sua risposta affermativa e formula un’altra domanda, più importante: «E’ stato, forse, mutato qualcosa nella dottrina della Chiesa?». Rispondendo, così conclude: «Insomma le mutazioni riguardano solo gli strumenti, talune modalità, uno stile congruo alla epoca in cui viviamo e alle sue supreme istanze. Tutto campo di un mirabile aggiornamento, il quale si risolve in un maggiore dovere. Tutto ha avanzato, nulla è stato deformato di quanto è stabile per natura e per determinazione divina; nulla è regredito. C’è stato aggiornamento, nessun rinnegamento... Abbiamo inteso Padri non indegni di Atanasio, di Cirillo d’Alessandria, di Agostino. Abbiamo sentito Pietro al suo posto e da Lui abbiamo ricevuto il saluto e la missione di pace»" (from the: Introduzione al volume “La giovinezza della Chiesa - Testimonianze, documenti e studi sul Concilio Vaticano II” by cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi o.p.).

[Translation of the highlighted words: Cardinal Siri ask to himself in front of the faithful "The Council was positive?", answer: "Without any doubt". And a little bit further: "[With Vatican II] There has been updating (aggiornamento), no denial"].


Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:37 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:
If for you Vatican II is orthodox under the aspect of the catholic Faith, there is no problem for me, this would be a your (erroneous) opinion. I have not intention to discuss of this.


Well, my view is that the texts are generally orthodox, often dangerously ambiguous, and sometimes actually heretical, taken in their most obvious sense anyway. Cardinal Siri disagreed, as you have quoted. Did you really consider what he wrote? He doesn't profess any theological error at all in the words you quoted - he merely affirms that Vatican II was orthodox and did not change the faith, which is unable to be changed. That is a Catholic doing his best to understand the Council as a general council of the Catholic Church, not an innovator who does not profess the faith. Where I differ with him is in the interpretation of the texts. I would hope that is where you differ with him too, but perhaps you find something else blameworthy in his words?

Gabriele wrote:
I give for granted, here, that the conciliar novelties they constitute an attack on the Catholic Faith. If you do not like the term "approve" take the term "promote", "defend", "profess", "propose", or what you prefer.


No, those terms don't make any difference to the point at issue. The point is whether or not Siri's understanding of the texts is such as to make him a non-Catholic. You appear to say that a man who misunderstands the texts so as to see them as orthodox, is thereby professing heresy. This seems to me to be a very singular notion!

Gabriele wrote:
Without distinction, because for Cardinal Siri the Vatican II did not contain errors or heresies. Thus, he peacefully professed the errors of Vatican II.


I hope you see that the proposition in your second sentence does not follow logically from your first. To say that Vatican II does not contain errors is ambiguous. It may mean that he is personally orthodox and yet he sees nothing against the true faith; or it may mean that he has adopted the errors himself and insists that they are actually truths, not errors. The first view is that of a Catholic who is mistaken, and the second view is that of a Modernist heretic.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:42 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
James Francis wrote:
John,

I agree with you that Ganmain would obviously be a pocket of Catholicism ( I feel infinitely sorry for the nuns who have to make do with the NO pretty well permanently).

I would also include the Wagga seminary as a pocket of Catholicism- whatever case one can make for the Ganmain sisters remaining catholic can also be made for the men at the seminary and most of their professors.


Well, the bishop there, Hanna, who succeeded Brennan, appointed a director of education for the diocese who insisted that the Dominicans teach evolution in the school. As I understand it, they appealed to Hanna and he said he had no say in the matter, so they ended up resigning from their position running the school, and the school appointed lay teachers who were happy to teach that abominable theory. Hanna doesn't sound like somebody with any principles to me, so I'd stunned if he runs an orthodox seminary!

James Francis wrote:
Which leads me to wonder what the point of being a trad or a sedevacantist actually is? It's pretty inconvenient to have to drive hours to Mass on Sunday and when one considers that the sisters do jolly well with regular exposure to a Protestant, doubtfully valid mass, why fret about who the last pope was or what VII says...

There must be some benefit to accepting the sedevacantist thesis- what is it? :?


Well, I agree that the sisters do very well, astonishingly well, but they are fighting against the stream, and they are doing so under the leadership of somebody with decades of experience, who knows all the tactics of the enemy and is under no illusions about novel proposals and where they lead. She has seen it all, and suffered immensely from it. They are in an exceptional position. No doubt their chief source of grace is prayer, not the mass and the sacraments. We know from the Japanese experience that this will suffice, for some. The majority of Japanese Catholics failed without the sacraments, but some survived with their faith intact, so it's possible. Possible, not probable, of course.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Btw, James, you are aware that the school(s) with which the sisters are now associated are independent of the Novus diocese? It's a fascinating story, and it's additional proof that Catholics cannot really be subject to heretics. For those who don't know, the Dominican sisters spent their time assisting home-schooling families after they were no longer able to serve in a diocesan school, and eventually some of those families set up a formal school. This school, St. Mary MacKillop Colleges (the plural is used to indicate that when numbers will support the split, there will no high-school co-education - in this point they are more faithful to Catholic thought than the CMRI), is not associated with the diocese, and does not have the name "Catholic" in its title because of legal restrictions. If they call themselves a "Catholic school" the diocese will sue them for false representation. The Novus Ordo diocese can't do anything about the situation, so what you'll find is that it generally pretends that the school is a fruit of the "conservative" nature of the diocese. There's a hypocrisy there which is sickening. To run a genuinely Catholic school one has to sever all official relations with the diocesan directorship of education, which means that one may not use the word "Catholic" to describe the school.

Here's the Web site of the school - note that Michael Voris was a recent speaker there (another who can't use the name "Catholic" without threat of a lawsuit): http://stmarymackillop.nsw.edu.au/news

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John, prepare to be stunned! :D

Hanna is execrable, but he really has nothing to do with the running of the seminary. He appointed an older Vincentian to run the place in 2003 or 4 and has essentially left it all up to him. He's an orthodox bloke as these things go, celebrates the TLM on occasion (other professors also do so on a more regular basis). The philosophy is Thomistic, the theology is basically also Thomist. If the documents of the council vanished from the face of the earth tonight, very little alteration would take place in the courses at the seminary.
There is a widespread devotion to Ratzinger- people fill their bookshelves with his stuff. But I suspect most of it goes unread- or not understood.
Hanna turns up about twice a year for lunch. No more. All this I know and can vouch for because I was in the place myself for 6 years! It certainly *seems* to turn out Catholics- zealous ones at that.

My point in harping on boringly about this is that I can multiply examples of such people remaining in the novus ordo set up and remaining Catholic. This is mysterious to me, and my earlier question about the utility of sedevacantism tried to express this ecclesiological puzzlement. My ulterior purpose in asking the question was to get some advice: I'm pretty well convinced by the account of the state of the Church you outline John and of the practical measures you suggest in "sedevacantism, safety and peace", and I'm going to have to explain things to my wife- in particular that we can no longer go to diocesan TLMs but only to SSPX or sede Masses. She will no doubt object that all our young homeschooling family friends from the diocesan TLM are Catholic- and I'll have to agree. Then she'll point out that the blokes in the sem are Catholic - again, certainly looks like it. So why do we have to travel 3 hours to get to a SSPX Mass if one can save one's soul in the novus ordo? How should I answer?
And do you or others have any good advice about how to break the sedevacantist news to one's family?


Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Yes, I've had quite a bit of contact with the school since before its inception (I used to run their little orchestra).
But again this is more of my point: the principal family who set up the school are rusted on novus ordoites. They seem to be making a pretty good fist of being Catholic. So why should anyone be encouraged to abjure the novus ordo in favour of tradition when it doesn't seem to make much difference to being a Catholic?


Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:40 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
James,

I am sure you can multiply examples of Catholics remaining in the Novus milieu - so can I. Two things in reply: 1. These are exceptions, who maintain the faith by their correspondence with grace, almost universally to my knowledge by devotion to the Rosary. The practices of the New Religion are obstacles which these exceptional people are overcoming. 2. Go to the SSPX mass centre for a few months, get to know the people, then compare. Between Fraternity of St. Peter types, and SSPX people, there is a manifest gulf of seriousness, clear-mindedness, success in raising Catholic families, etc.

Sedevacantism is the theoretical (meaning true, not plausible) solution to the ecclesiological problem that the New Religion presents to serious thinkers. It's not about solving every problem, but merely the otherwise faith-destroying problem that the New Church represents.

Here's Fr. Faber challenging the "Oxford Movement" type of Anglicans of his day. Ask yourself how you'd answer the same argument if presented against the "Benedict is pope" traditionalist position:

Quote:
We are to have doubts and perplexities; but surely the Church is to support us under them, not to be the very fountain of them. We are to be cross-bearers: but where are we ever led to be prepared for anything so terrible as that our Church is to be our cross? Yet you acknowledge your Church to be itself a very realizable cross to you: your light is darkness; alas that it should be so.


I can't answer that argument, which is why I'm a sedevacantist. That is, I believe in the real Catholic Church, the one founded by our Lord, the pillar and ground of truth, the channel of holiness to all men, infallible and indefectible. That's what I'd tell your wife. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:54 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Oh, and this: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... topic=9409

Doubtful sacraments, at best, in the Novus milieu.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John,

Fr Faber is so good! What is that from?

Wife is off to Goulburn in a few days for the Ignatian retreat (I'd love to do it myself- one day, God willing).

I'll spring the news on her when she gets back and is full of Ignatian indifference!

Thanks John.


Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

I see that I have not answered Mike's question

Quote:
But, and this is crucial, is that these anti-popes have not been declared to be outside the Church, so adherence to them is not proof of a defection of Faith.

Some, or at least at a minimum, one bishop in the world who is a member of the hierarchy must have the Faith. Do you accept the fact that the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time? From what you are saying, it seems that you are not clear about the Church's teaching on this.


Adherence ( per say) to Benedict since no declaration, is of course not proof of defection of the Faith.

As far as I have read, yes, the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time. This is why I think with the passage of time, we need a in-depth study on ecclesiology circa 2012. Since the documents of V2 , new catechism, new canon law, papal encyclicals expounding the new religions understanding of the V2 documents the novus ordo is in firm control. Layman are not held to the same criteria standard as bishops....so with the long passage of time, I do find it hard to believe a novus ordo bishop still has ordinary jurisdiction.

In the retirement homes for Clergy in Rome, or any diocese for that matter, I see no movement to elect their own bishop to replace the modernists currently occupying the Chairs.

Quote:
John posted :

The phrase, "doctrines of Vatican II" is ambiguous: does it mean the errors that we can see were expressed in the texts? Or does it mean the working out of those texts into their full horror, as we saw with Assisi, or with that bishop in Seattle? And "approved" is ambiguous: we see that right here in this thread, where Vince meant by that word the mere failure to "battle" against the errors of Vatican II. Is it true and sufficient to say that silence equals consent, in the particular circumstances of Vatican II and its aftermath, where certain errors and tendencies appeared to have the approval of Rome itself?



Finally, the phrase carries the hidden assumption that all of the errors of Vatican II (whether we are speaking of the texts, or the errors somewhat hidden in them which flowered later) were opposed to dogma, and were therefore heresies. They weren't.



John- This has been thrashed out over the decades….I would say the following are at least “ errors”.. wouldn’t you?

Dignitatis Humanæ
Lumen Gentium
Gaudium st Spes

In Archbishops Lefebvre’s book- "Objections to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty" he called it a “ new doctrine”. See Preface page xv.
AIn Xto,
Vincent


Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Chrisit !


Ken- thanks for the kind words. And I hope all is well with you and yours this Holy Christmas Season !

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:59 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
James Francis wrote:
John,

Fr Faber is so good! What is that from?


It's from an apologetics pamphlet by Faber, quoted in the Life by Bowden. You can download it here: http://archive.org/stream/thelifeandlet ... t_djvu.txt That quote is from p. 242.

James Francis wrote:
Wife is off to Goulburn in a few days for the Ignatian retreat (I'd love to do it myself- one day, God willing).

I'll spring the news on her when she gets back and is full of Ignatian indifference!


LOL!

If she hasn't done a retreat before, she will certainly be surprised. I was, anyway. What a wonderful thing they are!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Dear Vince,

Religious liberty, even the full-on unambiguous expression of it from the French Revolutionary era, was condemned repeatedly by several popes, none of whom labelled it "heretical" but rather "madness" etc. They excoriated it in every term they could, but evidently "heretical" was not an available term in the context.

This doesn't settle the matter, but it makes it very difficult to make the case that what was in many ways the central and worst error of Vatican II was actually a heresy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

John,

I repectfully disagree, and with the notion that Religious Liberty was the central or worst for the errors. Other writers refer to the 3 constitutions I posted in general as heretical.


- http://www.cmri.org/sedevacantist-position.shtml & http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... &catname=5

In Xto,
Vincent


Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:56 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Ken wrote:

Quote:
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Mike posted -
Quote:
Some, or at least at a minimum, one bishop in the world who is a member of the hierarchy must have the Faith. Do you accept the fact that the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time? From what you are saying, it seems that you are not clear about the Church's teaching on this.

It appears all the Pius XIIth and John 23rd bishops that are still alive are retired.....I don't think you and John accept their retirement without a pope, but they do, and have sullied off to the golden years of blissful retirement.


Quote:
Vince, I don't think your answer directly addresses Mike's question: I agree with Mike's first statement in the above, and his question to you. I am not sure I agree with his last statement to you, knowing as I do, the depth of your sometimes unstated excellent understanding of Church Doctrine.


Dear Ken,

I agree with that as well. I have the highest respect for Vincent, as I do for you as well, and he and I see eye to eye on the state of the Church and many other issues.

I think though, that this particular point is part of theology to which most people do not think about, or have not really looked into very deeply. I had to educate myself about these matters, and do some digging to really grasp it as well, so I am no way faulting Vincent. Prior to the crisis in the Church, it would have just been a basic assumption that they hierarchy can never end, no one would have even thought about it, as all Catholics knew that this could never happen, so why worry about it?

Now, we are faced with a dilemma that I do not think that any Catholic could have ever imagined. The hierarchy in my view is greatly diminished and far less visible. I know you know all this, and I know that you have a possible solution to it.

It seems that these days, there is a growing tendency to want to "change the rules," so to speak, and create a new ecclesiology to answer the problem of the less visible hierarchy. This tendency must be resisted, as the hierarchy can only be those bishops sent by the Church, and they cannot all be extinguished.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vincent wrote:
Quote:
Adherence ( per say) to Benedict since no declaration, is of course not proof of defection of the Faith.

As far as I have read, yes, the hierarchy must exist in the world until the end of time. This is why I think with the passage of time, we need a in-depth study on ecclesiology circa 2012. Since the documents of V2 , new catechism, new canon law, papal encyclicals expounding the new religions understanding of the V2 documents the novus ordo is in firm control. Layman are not held to the same criteria standard as bishops....so with the long passage of time, I do find it hard to believe a novus ordo bishop still has ordinary jurisdiction.

In the retirement homes for Clergy in Rome, or any diocese for that matter, I see no movement to elect their own bishop to replace the modernists currently occupying the Chairs.


Dear Vincent,

Thank you for the answer, and it was the one I was hoping for. :)

I do not see any real disagreement between us on this. The only point that has to be answered is who these bishops are. I think, as John Lane has pointed out, that there needs to be a universal principle here to form us in this. Like yourself, I wish John Daly would jump in or write an article on it, as I know he has studied these matters.

But, for the time being, the following facts and principles apply here.

1. The bishops appointed by Pius XII were given habitual jurisdiction by the Pope. There are still some that are alive in the world today.

2. The status of John XXIII is far more difficult to determine than Paul VI and his successors, so it is possible that the bishops of John XXIII were sent by a pope, receiving habitual jurisdiction. I mention these bishops, but the discussion could be further extended to study the bishops appointed by the anti-pope with supplied jurisdiction.

3. I know our friend Gabriele on here has a theory about bishops losing their jurisdiction for reasons that are not stated by any theologian, and as much as I think well of Gabriele, I stand only with the theologians that state the only way a bishop can lose his jurisdiction are: heresy, schism, apostasy, resignation and transfer.

4. Resignation does not apply here, as only a lawful superior can accept a resignation, not an imposter.

5. The bishops cannot be accused as a group of schism, since the anti-pope remains undeclared by the Church.

6. Transfer is not relevant, and does not apply here, so there is no point examining that.

7. The only two left and are the most important to look at are apostasy and heresy.

8. I think you would agree that the act of signing the Vatican II documents would not make one a heretic. If that were true then by logic, you would have to accuse Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer of being heretics. I am sure you would not go there, so the next question logically is how orthodox bishops could sign the documents.

9. I believe a strong argument can be made that the manner in which the texts of Vatican II were written were constructed in such a way that the orthodox bishops could reasonably believe that there would be a Catholic interpretation of the documents. Secondly, as the documents were approved by the man they believed at the time to be Pope, that bishops could place their trust in Papal infallibility and be certain that the documents would be orthodox.

10. I believe the same principles that possibly defend the bishops from the charge of heresy at Vatican II may also apply to the acts of the newly formed Conciliar church. This means that it is possible for orthodox bishops to exist within the structure of the Conciliar church while believing that it is the Catholic Church.

11. It is possible due to the undeclared status of the anti-popes, and the absence of a council of bishops who have assembled to address the crisis, that there is currently a "fog" over the battle lines between the Catholic Church and Conciliar church. Many Catholics have failed to identify the fact that a sect has been created, and has severed itself from the Church. Even Archbishop Lefebvre recognized this fact by calling the Conciliar church a schismatic church, but even he wanted to acknowledge it as the Church and kept trying to negotiate with it and considered the anti-pope leaders of it as lawful popes.

12. Clearly the fog was so thick that even great and orthodox men such as Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer were unsure about how whether or not to permanently sever themselves from the Conciliar church with full recognition that it is a sect and not the Church of all ages.

13. I believe the fact that the Conciliar church is a sect is further obscured by the fact that many Catholics still live within its structures, still keep the Faith, and believe that it is the Church.

14. In the absence of authority, Catholics have had to rely on themselves. This is unheard of, as Catholicism itself is based on authority and trust of that authority. Our Lord created the office of the Papacy which would protect Catholics, by always giving them the source of authority they could trust, and we would never have to rely on our own judgment on these type of matters. But, in this crisis, we as Catholics lack that authority to guide us, therefore, the bishops, priests and laity that have kept the Faith and still remain in the fog of battle must be given every consideration to excuse them due to confusion or ignorance.

15. I believe the remaining faithful bishops, along with the priests and laity in the Conciliar church are themselves victims of this confusion, and are not outside the Church merely for their adherence to the Conciliar Church while falsely believing it is the Catholic Church.

16. In order to identify who the remaining hierarchy are, it would be up to us to do the painstaking task of learning all that we could about all bishops who have a claim to an office in the Church and learn if they have kept the Faith or if they have defected from the Faith and have fallen into heresy.

17. The fact that the remaining bishops have taken no overt action such as attempting to call for a council, or not publicly denouncing heresy, is not in and of itself proof of heresy on their part. In order to be a public heretic, one must publicly through words, writings or actions state heretical propositions. That is the teaching of the theologians. Each bishop must be studied individually to determine his orthodoxy.

18. If the remaining bishops who have kept the Faith assembled in Council, along with the remaining faithful clergy of Rome, the power would be to them alone to declare the fact of the vacancy of the See of Rome, and proceed to elect a Pope.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:37 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:

Quote:
Dear John, I was speaking with Mike, that is a person for which Vatican II contains non-catholic doctrines and also heresies (for example Mike said: "... A faulty understanding of Vatican II and its heresies does not make one a heretic"). If for you Vatican II is orthodox under the aspect of the catholic Faith, there is no problem for me, this would be a your (erroneous) opinion. I have not intention to discuss of this. I give for granted, here, that the conciliar novelties they constitute an attack on the Catholic Faith. If you do not like the term "approve" take the term "promote", "defend", "profess", "propose", or what you prefer.


Dear Gabriele,

I think we are back to square one with our discussion. I stand by the fact that the theologians and this is all of them who have spoken on this, state, that in order to lose jurisdiction for heresy, that one must be a public heretic.

If a bishop has not stated publicly with words, writings or actions a heretical proposition, then we cannot accuse him of being a heretic. If he is not a heretic, then he is a member of the Church. If he is a member of the Church and holds an office in the Church, then he retains that office. The reason why the Code states that heretics are ipso facto deprived of office is that public heretics are no longer members of the Church.

You have admitted in the past that you do not know any of the bishops who have a claim to an office in the Church, those bishops who are the last members of the hierarchy. Without knowing them, or having studied their writings, you are writing with certainty here that they have lost their jurisdiction based on a principle not taught by the Church.

Let me ask you, what if some of these bishops still had the Faith? There is only one way to know for sure, and that is something that will take resources and time, which many Catholics lack at present. But, whatever any investigation of these bishops turns up, I can state with absolute certainty based on the teaching of the Vatican Council and the unanimous agreement of the theologians that there must always be in the world, at least at a minimum one member of the hierarchy.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
A few more thoughts about this:

1. Even if most of the bishops in question have lost the Faith, it is a matter of Faith that some or at least one remain.

2. We trust our Lord that he is always present in the blessed Sacrament even when we do not see with our eyes, we see with Faith. This dogma about the hierarchy is also one that we must at present trust with Faith, as we are not seeing it clearly with our eyes. If you were shipwrecked on a desert island for 50 years, would you not also trust that the Church's hierarchy was still present in the world even if you were not seeing them or could have any way of communicating with them?

3. Even if the last member of the hierarchy were an old, infirm bishop in a nursing home somewhere, is it not our duty to trust God, that the Church can continue through him?

4. God can perform any miracle. He can preserve the life of some of the old bishops. If God miraculously preserved any of us from dying, we could live to any age. He can make an old man have the strength and energy of a 20 year old. He can return health to a sick and old bishop, or one who is incapacitated. Whatever way this whole scenario works out, we can trust God that He has kept His hierarchy intact through this crisis. One thing we must always remember, and we know this as Catholics, is that this crisis may not be solved merely by natural means, it may be that God's miraculous involvement is taking place or will take place.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:32 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Pax Christi !

John,

I repectfully disagree, and with the notion that Religious Liberty was the central or worst for the errors.


Dear Vince,

Well, the CMRI text that you linked to says that "[t]he Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism", so I think you probably would agree that religious liberty is "in many ways the central and worst error of Vatican II" as I said.

Where I challenge the CMRI, or anybody else who wishes to tackle the point, is to prove that religious liberty is heretical, as they assert.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Other writers refer to the 3 constitutions I posted in general as heretical.


Yes, including me. :) I wrote emphatically that it was heretical in the late nineties, when I was refuting Michael Davies, then withdrew the article a few years later when I realised I couldn't prove that assertion. Nor have I seen anybody else prove it since.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vincent wrote:
In the retirement homes for Clergy in Rome, or any diocese for that matter, I see no movement to elect their own bishop to replace the modernists currently occupying the Chairs.


Dear Vince, I am not sure why you expect the remaining bishops with jurisdiction to set about electing a pope. It would be good if they did, but surely it isn't relevant to whether they actually possess ordinary jurisdiction! Actually, it may be that some of them don't even know they have it still.

Mike wrote:
9. I believe a strong argument can be made that the manner in which the texts of Vatican II were written were constructed in such a way that the orthodox bishops could reasonably believe that there would be a Catholic interpretation of the documents. Secondly, as the documents were approved by the man they believed at the time to be Pope, that bishops could place their trust in Papal infallibility and be certain that the documents would be orthodox.

10. I believe the same principles that possibly defend the bishops from the charge of heresy at Vatican II may also apply to the acts of the newly formed Conciliar church. This means that it is possible for orthodox bishops to exist within the structure of the Conciliar church while believing that it is the Catholic Church.

I agree with your thoughts, Mike, but I wanted to highlight these points (above), which I think are at the heart of the mystery of the present crisis.

Mike wrote:
11. It is possible due to the undeclared status of the anti-popes, and the absence of a council of bishops who have assembled to address the crisis, that there is currently a "fog" over the battle lines between the Catholic Church and Conciliar church. Many Catholics have failed to identify the fact that a sect has been created, and has severed itself from the Church. Even Archbishop Lefebvre recognized this fact by calling the Conciliar church a schismatic church, but even he wanted to acknowledge it as the Church and kept trying to negotiate with it and considered the anti-pope leaders of it as lawful popes.


I think his most clear expression of the principle you are touching on was as follows (note the relative nature of the expression he uses):
Quote:
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church....” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
I suggest that anybody who says that some proposition or other is heretical simply state the dogma to which the heretical proposition is opposed.

It would be heretical to assert that men may choose any religion that appeals to them as true, without fear of evil consequences. It is not actually heretical to say that the best condition of society is one in which no religion receives the favour of the state. It is erroneous, and pregnant with a thousand heresies, but not in itself heretical. If it were heretical, we'd be able to sense what dogma was being denied by it, but we can't. Well, I can't, and I haven't seen anybody else make the case. Is it a revealed truth that the state must recognise the rights of Christ the King, by outlawing false worship and supporting the true religion, for example?

This is one reason why the conservative bishops didn’t react as we wish they had, during and after Vatican II.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Well, Gentlemen, I must commend you on this very clear and cogent discussion, and I thank you for it.

I only hope and pray that I live long enough to see at least the beginnings of the Resurrection of our beloved Catholic Church.

Personally, I cannot understand why God is waiting so long: the situation in the world is far worse now than it was at the time Our Lord was born. God is being constantly insulted beyond belief.

The four sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance are so common that most people in the world no longer even regard them as sins at all.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Dear John, Mike and Vince,

It was either John Lane or John Lamont who explained to me that the problem with finding heresy in the documents of VII was that the archbishop and his Coetus had succeeded too well in modifying heretical statements, introducing correctives etc into the texts; and that, ironically, we would be in a much clearer position had the archbishop's neutralising manoeuvres failed and the texts stood as so many mounds of heresy.

That said, does it particularly matter that the texts publish error rather than heresy? Presumably the magisterium can no more err than fall into heresy so that the texts are still useful for demonstrating a missing element- I.e. papal approval?


Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John just for clarity's sake, you no longer agree with this article on your site?

http://sedevacantist.com/heresies.html


Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Pax Christi !

John Lane posted :

Quote:
Dear Vince, I am not sure why you expect the remaining bishops with jurisdiction to set about electing a pope. It would be good if they did, but surely it isn't relevant to whether they actually possess ordinary jurisdiction! Actually, it may be that some of them don't even know they have it still.



I did not say anything about bishops with jurisdiction electing their own pope......... I mentioned Rome first, which I think we agree the current Bishop of Rome ( Benedict) does not have ordinary jurisdiction, then, used one of your possible solutions ( if I understand correctly) the clergy of Rome or other diocese can elect their own bishop, to replace the one that is a novus ordo. I then mentioned other diocese who have modernists’ bishops.

This was my attempt to show the firmness that the Novus Ordo has on the Diocese's, with no real resistiance given by the remaining clergy.

Regarding you debating the CMRI or any of the many other clergy that hold the position on Vatican II, it would be an interesting debate indeed !

In Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, there is a footnote which is rather reveling;

“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”


In Xto,

Vincent


Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
James Francis wrote:
It was either John Lane or John Lamont who explained to me that the problem with finding heresy in the documents of VII was that the archbishop and his Coetus had succeeded too well in modifying heretical statements, introducing correctives etc into the texts; and that, ironically, we would be in a much clearer position had the archbishop's neutralising manoeuvres failed and the texts stood as so many mounds of heresy.


I don't know if it was me who said that, but I agree with it entirely. The more one studies the nature of heresy the more clear it becomes what a masterpiece of Satan himself those texts of Vatican II are. Religious liberty is the classic - the wrong question is posed, and answered with terms which are undefined, and in an ambiguous way, and it's introduced by a direct statement denying that what follows modifies received Christian doctrine in any way.

James Francis wrote:
That said, does it particularly matter that the texts publish error rather than heresy? Presumably the magisterium can no more err than fall into heresy so that the texts are still useful for demonstrating a missing element- I.e. papal approval?


Exactly.

The other thing to keep in view is that the problems with the Conciliar popes and the mass of concilar bishops did not consist solely in those texts. Paul VI was a heretic, judging by his whole career. These men almost completely destroyed the Catholic Church in a few years, and described the process as a New Pentecost. These were men without faith, and filled with the spirit of mendacity. They claimed that their reforms were for the reinvigoration of the Church, yet when they led directly to catastrophe, they imposed their evils the more thoroughly and firmly.

Here is Cardinal John de Torquemada on the hypothesis of a schismatic pope.

Quote:
1 - (...) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way, he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able, without doubt, to fall into schism.

2 - The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, di. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the Universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt Quidam and Contra Statuta (25, q. 1). Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. The consequence is good; and the antecedent is not doubtful, for the Pope, just as he could fall into heresy, could also disobey and pertinaciously cease to observe that which was established for the common order in the Church. For this reason, Innocent says (c. “De Consue.”) that one ought to obey the Pope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed unless there is reasonable cause for this.

3 - Let us suppose that more than one person considers himself Pope, and that one of them be the true Pope, but considered by some to be probably dubious. And let ussuppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church, that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to the way many have argued, even in our days, in connection with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII.”



Adopting a whole new, Protestant-inspired, rite of mass is in practice to separate oneself from Catholic unity, which is exactly what happened. Faithful Catholics refused to go along with this schism and remained with the true mass and maintained the true faith.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:02 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
James Francis wrote:
John just for clarity's sake, you no longer agree with this article on your site?

http://sedevacantist.com/heresies.html


Thanks James. I no longer hold that religious liberty is heretical, and neither does John Daly, the author of that article.

The difficulty in applying censures accurately and with precision is great in any case, but in the case of Vatican II it's phenomenal, because the texts are couched in such confusing terminology. Vatican II is a mass of contradictions. But that's what everybody has been saying for nearly fifty years. :)

I think if we ever get a new article out re-doing this work, it will need to employ the kind of language found in the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Vince Sheridan wrote:
I did not say anything about bishops with jurisdiction electing their own pope......... I mentioned Rome first, which I think we agree the current Bishop of Rome ( Benedict) does not have ordinary jurisdiction, then, used one of your possible solutions ( if I understand correctly) the clergy of Rome or other diocese can elect their own bishop, to replace the one that is a novus ordo. I then mentioned other diocese who have modernists’ bishops.

This was my attempt to show the firmness that the Novus Ordo has on the Diocese's, with no real resistiance given by the remaining clergy.


Ah, my misunderstanding, Vince. I apologise.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Regarding you debating the CMRI or any of the many other clergy that hold the position on Vatican II, it would be an interesting debate indeed !

In Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, there is a footnote which is rather reveling;

“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”


In Xto,

Vincent


Mate, don't misunderstand what is at issue here. Religious liberty is a pernicious error, solemnly condemned by the Church, and responsible for much of the utter destruction of the faith which followed Vatican II. This discussion is focused on a technical question - the correct classification of this particular error, and the immediate consequences for the culprit who adopts it. If it's heretical, anybody who adopts it loses his faith by that very act. If it's not actually heretical, a Catholic may adopt it without leaving the Church, but he sins mortally against faith in doing so.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John,

Your allusion to the language used to condemn Pistoia might answer this question but have you consider how to classify religious liberty if not as heretical?

Also, if it is not too big a task (and if it isn't asking you to prove a negative) can you show how you and John Daly have concluded that religious liberty is not heresy? In other words, what have you taken into consideration that has changed your position?


Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Well, it's certainly erroneous, James. Perhaps it might be best qualified as "erroneous, and leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical." This is because it implies some kind of indifferentism, and that is heretical. Another way to qualify it would be something like, "Erroneous, and insofar as it implies indifferentism, heretical."

As for why I changed my mind (ten years ago, probably - I'd need to check), it was simply that I believed the burden to be on me to prove such an assertion, and when I reviewed the case I had made, I was no longer convinced it was watertight. I imagine JS Daly's thought was similar, but I don't know that I have asked him what actually produced his change of view.

There's a broader factor also, which is that 2500 bishops, the proper judges of the faith in the Catholic Church, did not judge it to be heretical at Vatican II. That is a good motive for caution. Some, however, excoriated it as erroneous, such as Archbishop Lefebvre himself.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:30 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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.