It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 9:10 pm




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

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:
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.
_________________



John- I am well aware of this distinction.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:08 am
Profile

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


Ken,

I hope too to see the restoration, and my feeling is that things will be restored, but there will be much suffering and I believe martyrdom for Catholics when it comes. The part of the third secret that was revealed refers to this, the Pope will be martyred and many with him. These will be terrifying times, I hope we are ready for what will eventually come.

A possible reason I have thought of, to explain why God is holding back the God's punishment for the world, may be that there are still enough just men in the world. One lesson I think we can learn from God's destroying of the city of Sodom was that he was willing to spare the city if only 10 just men were found. It would seem that the scale of good in the world is still possibly holding back a terrible punishment. With the increasing corruption of the youth, the apparent lack of holiness, virtue and Faith, the scale may tip and I think it is coming soon.

I agree with you that the type of sins being committed are the specific sins that call down God's wrath. The sin of the ancient city described above is now everywhere, being codified into law all through the U.S. and the world to protect it and promote it, with parades and public officials openly approving and defending it. This, in addition to the millions of murders of the unborn every year, the deliberate refusal of couples to have children and using pills to destroy God's order of things, and on and on the list goes.

Like yourself, I do not see this going on too much longer. The evil in the world is so great, that it must be at least close to or equal to that which existed at the time of the flood. At least it seems that way.

I think some words of consolation in all of this can be found in the words of Our Lady of Quito:

“In order to free men from bondage to these heresies, those chosen by Most Holy Son to effect the restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and confidence in God. To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions where all will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:16 am
Profile

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


Dear James,

A very interesting observation and irony about Archbishop Lefebvre. I also agree with you about the magisterium not being able to teach erroneous doctrine. If this were true, then the Church would bind us to mortal sin, which is impossible.

My understanding is that Archbishop Lefebvre did not sign the any documents until Paul VI approved them, and with this approval, he then signed presumably knowing that he could rely on papal infallibility to protect the Church from heresy or error.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:32 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Mike wrote:
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.



Mike wrote:
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.


Dear Mike,

I have already said that I agree with you about the permanence of at least two bishops with authority.

But why do you not answer to my question?

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?

I await your answer with confidence, Mike.

A cordial greeting.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:01 am
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:
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?


No, John, I do not find nothing else. These words are already harmful by their-self. And I repeat, if Vatican II contains errors, to defend and profess the goodness of Vatican II, even in good faith (as Siri did), it means to profess these errors. In the same way, if you say, in good faith, that the persons of the Holy Trinity are four, you may be not a heretic, but what you are professing is contrary to the Catholic Faith. So it is impossible to say that Siri professed as goods all the doctrines of Vatican II (included those which are non orthodox) and, at the same time, to say that he did not profess any theological error.

John Lane wrote:
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!


And why? There are many people that profess heresy and errors without to be heretics. The point is not whether or not Siri is Catholic or non-Catholic. Personally, I have not any doubt: he is Catholic. The point is to understand whether Siri professed errors or not. Dear John, can you imagine a man that, completely unaware, professes an error? Well, this doesn’t mean that he is a non-orthodox man. This simply means that he professes an error. It seems to me not very difficult to understand!

John Lane wrote:
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.


Dear John, the difference between a Catholic who professes the erroneous doctrines of Vatican II and a Modernist who professes the same doctrines, evidently does not lie in the doctrines professed, but in the awareness and will of these men to profess doctrines which go against the doctrines always taught from the Church.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:26 pm
Profile E-mail

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

I have already said that I agree with you about the permanence of at least two bishops with authority.

But why do you not answer to my question?

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?

I await your answer with confidence, Mike.

A cordial greeting.


Dear Gabriele,

I am not sure that there would have to be two bishops, I think one would suffice, as far as my understanding of the doctrine. To your other point, I had asked you if you knew that these bishops have failed to profess Catholic doctrine as a fact or were you making an assumption. You have admitted that you do not know these bishops, have not studied their writings, so what evidence are you relying on?

I think we also need to better define what you mean when you say "profess our faith." When the bishops say any of the three Creeds, are they not professing our Faith? At Mass, (even the Novus Ordo still has the Nicene Creed) when the bishop publicly says the Nicene Creed is he not professing his Faith? If the bishop says his Rosary publicly, and says the Apostles Creed, is he not professing his Faith publicly? If the bishop says the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday even privately in his Breviary, is he not praying with the Church and professing his Faith?

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:32 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
I can accept the view that, perhaps, what is directly taught in the very documents of Vatican II on the issue of "Religious Liberty" is not heretical. I can't absolutely say because, frankly, when I tried to read the English translation of the documents (the only version I can read) I found them impossible for my feeble mind to understand. I was lost from the start. I have read the specific document on "Religious Liberty" and, frankly, my mind gets numb and I fall asleep. In fact, that document is ideal for someone who is suffering from insomnia. (N.B.: That is not intended as a joke. I am very serious about this. I cannot follow the documents. I cannot identify a specific heresy if it is true that the document merely requires the Church to recognize religious tolerance in civil matters even in "Catholic" countries.)

I know that the Church has always allowed for a certain level of religious tolerance since she herself can only exist through religious tolerance in places where Christianity is not the religion of State. Furthermore, the Church is probably one of the very few religions that truly understands that individuals can never truly be coerced into belief. The Church truly understands that conversion by the sword is no conversion at all.

I have always accepted that the Vatican II document on "Religious Liberty" to be heretical on the testimony of others. If it is not, that new concept (for me, anyway) does not really mean that much because even if "Religious Liberty" itself is not heretical, surely the "official Conciliar interpretation" that Paul 6, John Paul 2, and Benedict 16 and the greater bulk of the Conciliar bishops, cardinals, theologians, canonists, and priests have given it in which all men have a God-given right to believe hold to any religion they choose and that, through that belief, all men can possibly be saved IS heretical.

And if that is the "official" interpretation of the very documents that are now being classified as not being prima facie heretical does it really matter? In fact, if virtually the entire Church read those documents and saw that what they say means what is currently generally taught throughout the Conciliar establishment, are we to be absolutely sure that they don't actually say these horrific things?

I am not so sure.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:59 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
TKGS wrote:
even if "Religious Liberty" itself is not heretical, surely the "official Conciliar interpretation" that Paul 6, John Paul 2, and Benedict 16 and the greater bulk of the Conciliar bishops, cardinals, theologians, canonists, and priests have given it in which all men have a God-given right to believe hold to any religion they choose and that, through that belief, all men can possibly be saved IS heretical.


Yes, I agree.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:26 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
Gabriele wrote:
These words are already harmful by their-self. And I repeat, if Vatican II contains errors, to defend and profess the goodness of Vatican II, even in good faith (as Siri did), it means to profess these errors. In the same way, if you say, in good faith, that the persons of the Holy Trinity are four, you may be not a heretic, but what you are professing is contrary to the Catholic Faith.


But Siri didn't say that the specific errors of Vatican II, such as that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation, are true and orthodox. What he wrote, as you quoted, was that he thought that the texts were orthodox. We also know from other data that he professed Catholic beliefs, not erroneous or heretical ones.

The point you are missing, as your example proves (four persons in the Trinity), is that you cannot find Siri stating an error of doctrine, only an error of interpretation of texts (the texts of Vatican II). One is not a heretic for mistakenly thinking that an unorthodox text is patient of an orthodox interpretation. This much is obvious.

Also, you keep using this phrase, "professing the Catholic faith," but it isn't clear that you understand what that means. You appear to think it means that a man only ever says things which are perfectly orthodox. This is an error. The key phrase actually means that a man is openly subject to the magisterium. That is, that he is manifestly willing to be taught by the Church, rather than to hold his own views. This disposition of the soul is perfectly compatible with material error. If it weren't, then lots of bishops in history who were recognised and embraced by the Holy See were actually not bishops of the Catholic Church.

Bishops are not infallible, unlike popes. They may well have the disposition of St. Augustine, "I may err, but I will never be a heretic!"

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:38 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 !

Here is an interesting quote from Archbishop Levebvre

"To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:42 pm
Profile

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

I am not sure that there would have to be two bishops, I think one would suffice, as far as my understanding of the doctrine. To your other point, I had asked you if you knew that these bishops have failed to profess Catholic doctrine as a fact or were you making an assumption. You have admitted that you do not know these bishops, have not studied their writings, so what evidence are you relying on?


As you know, Vatican II contains also non-Catholic doctrines. Bishops who profess these doctrines have failed to profess integrally Catholic doctrine. If, as you claim, the episcopacy of the time of the definitive approbation of Vatican II conserved apostolical jurisdiction we must to conclude that at that time, as now, the trues sucessors of the Apostles approved, professed, defended (as you prefer) a non-Catholic doctrine. I await your position on this problem.

Mike wrote:
I think we also need to better define what you mean when you say "profess our faith." When the bishops say any of the three Creeds, are they not professing our Faith? At Mass, (even the Novus Ordo still has the Nicene Creed) when the bishop publicly says the Nicene Creed is he not professing his Faith? If the bishop says his Rosary publicly, and says the Apostles Creed, is he not professing his Faith publicly? If the bishop says the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday even privately in his Breviary, is he not praying with the Church and professing his Faith?


It is not so simple, as you know, dear Mike. Because it is not sufficient to say, for example, the Nicene Creed for to be a person who profess Catholic Faith. Indeed, if this person say the Nicene Creed and, at the same time, she does not believe and she denies (for example) the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, then she does not profess Catholic Faith.

A cordial greeting.


Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:55 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:
But Siri didn't say that the specific errors of Vatican II, such as that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation, are true and orthodox.


And why, then, did he defended all the doctrines of Vatican II?

John Lane wrote:
What he wrote, as you quoted, was that he thought that the texts were orthodox. We also know from other data that he professed Catholic beliefs, not erroneous or heretical ones.


If he professed the texts of Vatican II, he professed erroneous doctrines. And why not profess the doctrines contained in those texts if those texts are considered orthodox?

John Lane wrote:
The point you are missing, as your example proves (four persons in the Trinity), is that you cannot find Siri stating an error of doctrine, only an error of interpretation of texts (the texts of Vatican II).


About you do the texts of Vatican II which contain errors, they are susceptible to orthodox interpretations?
And if yes, why, about you, Lefebvre did not give the orthodox interpretations, and, on the contrary he fought those texts?

John Lane wrote:
One is not a heretic for mistakenly thinking that an unorthodox text is patient of an orthodox interpretation. This much is obvious.


I have never defined heretic the Cardinal Siri.

John Lane wrote:
Also, you keep using this phrase, "professing the Catholic faith," but it isn't clear that you understand what that means. You appear to think it means that a man only ever says things which are perfectly orthodox. This is an error. The key phrase actually means that a man is openly subject to the magisterium. That is, that he is manifestly willing to be taught by the Church, rather than to hold his own views. This disposition of the soul is perfectly compatible with material error. If it weren't, then lots of bishops in history who were recognised and embraced by the Holy See were actually not bishops of the Catholic Church.


I agree.

John Lane wrote:
Bishops are not infallible, unlike popes. They may well have the disposition of St. Augustine, "I may err, but I will never be a heretic!"


I agree. A bishop can err, but not the moral unanimity of episcopacy. In particulary if in that moment there is not a Pope.

A cordial greeting.


Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:06 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
And to continue with the thought that Gabriele began...

Modernists can, in "good conscience", publicly recite the Nicene Creed and not believe a word of it because they have, in their perverted minds, re-defined almost any word or phrase to mean whatever it is they wish it to mean. I have experienced this first hand, though I've never had anyone be quite as candid as Humpty Dumpty:



Lewis Carroll wrote:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'


Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:15 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 Christi !

I recall that Paul VI and JP2 would have a in trouble modernist theologian recite the Nicene Creed as their show of orthodoxy, while not forcing them to renounce their particular errors.


Same was done with the " return" of Fr. Feeney, which of course the SBC crows as evidence his EENS teaching was not an error either :)

In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin

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

John Lane wrote:
Bishops are not infallible, unlike popes. They may well have the disposition of St. Augustine, "I may err, but I will never be a heretic!"


I agree. A bishop can err, but not the moral unanimity of episcopacy. In particulary if in that moment there is not a Pope.


Gabriele, can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what these sentences say. I would have thought you would write, "In particular if there IS a pope."

Vince, the tactic of which you complain was used by Paul VI to prove his own faith, in about 1969, when he recited publicly the Credo of the People of God. Apparently Maritain wrote it, and it's actually pretty magnificent for the most part, but of course the ecumenism etc. gets a look in in places. Couldn't help themselves. Anyway, the point was that faith was under such attack, the spirit of apostasy was so rampant, that it was terrifying people and they were begging the chief culprit to do something about it. The public profession of faith was somebody's idea (maybe Maritain's?) of what would help, but as you point out, the problem couldn't be addressed that way. What was needed was the rejection of the specific errors which were being embraced by Catholics.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:36 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:
Gabriele wrote:
I agree. A bishop can err, but not the moral unanimity of episcopacy. In particulary if in that moment there is not a Pope.


Gabriele, can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what these sentences say. I would have thought you would write, "In particular if there IS a pope."


Yes, I explain me. I agree with you that, unlike the popes, a bishop can err in his magisterium. But the catholic bishops cannot all together err in their magisterium (I speak of the moral totality of bishops and not of the mathematical totality). Otherwise, we must to conclude that the whole episcopacy, that is the true successors of the Apostles, can together err in their magisterium. And we know that this is impossible, because the true successors of the Apostles are where there is the true Catholic doctrine (that is, they are where the true Catholic doctrine is professed). As Fr. Pesch s.j. remember us: "Hoc est argumentum S. Patrum: “ubi sunt legitimi successores apostolorum ibi est vera doctrina et vera Eccl. Christi”" [This is the argument of the Holy Fathers: where there are legitimate successors of the apostles here there is the true doctrine and the true Church of Christ].
Now, given that for me, you and Mike Paul VI was not Pope. Given that Vatican II introduced various heterodox doctrines and given that from that moment the bishops have unanimously begun to profess (or defend or promote ...) these doctrines. Well, if - as you and Mike claim - these bishops conserved the apostolic power of jurisdiction, you should to conclude that the true successors of Apostles did not profess the true doctrine of the Christ.
Theologians exclude that the whole episcopacy can profess a doctrine and the Pope alone an incompatible doctrine. But if it was possible, they say, the Pope would be infallible, not the whole episcopacy. Well, in the case that we examine, there is not the Pope, but "only" the episcopacy. There is not a Pope that can ensure the orthodoxy of the doctrine. Therefore, this task belongs to the episcopacy. Or at least it is certain that the true doctrine of the Christ remains in the episcopacy.

A cordial greeting.


Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:55 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
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
I agree. A bishop can err, but not the moral unanimity of episcopacy. In particulary if in that moment there is not a Pope.


Gabriele, can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what these sentences say. I would have thought you would write, "In particular if there IS a pope."


Yes, I explain me. I agree with you that, unlike the popes, a bishop can err in his magisterium. But the catholic bishops cannot all together err in their magisterium


Well, what I have read is that the bishops cannot err when united with the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise, they can err. The Roman Pontiff is the keystone of the entire structure of the Church.

But this is beyond the point we are discussing. That is, what does it mean to "profess the faith"? If a bishop leaves Vatican II and says it was all good, but himself never preaches the errors we can identify in the texts of Vatican II, how exactly is he not professing the faith? And if a hundred such bishops exist, some of whom explicitly rejected the very same errors we are complaining about, then how do we arrive at the conclusion that morally the entire episcopate adopted the errors of Vatican II?

Gabriele wrote:
Or at least it is certain that the true doctrine of the Christ remains in the episcopacy.

I agree with that, but we are not agreed on what that actually looks like.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:52 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 posted -

Quote:
But this is beyond the point we are discussing. That is, what does it mean to "profess the faith"? If a bishop leaves Vatican II and says it was all good, but himself never preaches the errors we can identify in the texts of Vatican II, how exactly is he not professing the faith? And if a hundred such bishops exist, some of whom explicitly rejected the very same errors we are complaining about, then how do we arrive at the conclusion that morally the entire episcopate adopted the errors of Vatican II?



John- do you think a bishop of a diocese that offers the novus ordo mass... still can have the catholic faith???????



Look forward to your insights


In Xto


Vincent


Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:54 am
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:
John- do you think a bishop of a diocese that offers the novus ordo mass... still can have the catholic faith???????


Dear Vince,

You mean, like Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and Thuc?

Yes. The point is, they thought it came with the sanction of Rome. And nobody regarded it as heretical, only deficient.

By the way, I have tried on various occasions to put the case that the vernacular translation of the Canon was indeed heretical, because it asserts that Our Lord said "all men" when it is de fide by the unanimous interpretation of the plain sense of Holy Writ that He actually said "for many". I have yet to get a traditional Catholic thinker, layman or cleric, to agree with me. That includes all of the men you might think of immediately, Vince, knowing me and my circle as you do. I still can't understand why my case isn't valid, but the reaction of others forces me to the conclusion that the mistranslation does not constitute heresy after all. I don't know why it doesn't, but apparently it doesn't.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John, if I may, I would like to offer a comment or two in regard to your last post to Vince, and ask a question of you as well.

In your reply you make the comment that Siri et al regarded the new Mass as "deficient" and not necessarily heretical. Even if this is indeed the case, I would be interested in your understanding of deficencies eminating from the Church. In other words is it possible for the True Church to create, offer and promulgate deficient sacramental rites? Can She give us rites that are harmful or detrimental to our faith? Isn't that akin to saying the Holy Ghost is on vacation?

Further on you lament that there seems little support of your assertion that the change from "for many" to "for all" is hertical, which I happen to agree with you on. In this regard I vividly remember my novus ordo childhood in the early 70's when my parents, who remain novus ordo to this day, whould come home after mass and talk about their disgust with the "eucharitic prayer" that contained the shocking statement that "Father you alone are God, you alone are the Holy One". I realize that at some point in time they allegedly fixed this error (heresy) but for me what remains is the fact that the Church was promulgating blatant heresy. Do you also remember that?


Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:48 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 posted -
Quote:
Vince, the tactic of which you complain was used by Paul VI to prove his own faith, in about 1969, when he recited publicly the Credo of the People of God. Apparently Maritain wrote it, and it's actually pretty magnificent for the most part, but of course the ecumenism etc. gets a look in in places. Couldn't help themselves. Anyway, the point was that faith was under such attack, the spirit of apostasy was so rampant, that it was terrifying people and they were begging the chief culprit to do something about it.



Yes paul vi's credo even hood winked Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, and kept him in the novus ordo fold. Even when he was convinced a 5th colume was destroying the church. Ever read his book - THE DEVASTATED VINEYARD? I would think, given the passage of time, if he had lived longer one could hope he would have left the novus ordo establishment. He was so convinced the new mass was just a passing fancy, and that the true Mass would of course be brought back to all parishes.

In Xto,


Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:34 pm
Profile

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
John Lane wrote:
By the way, I have tried on various occasions to put the case that the vernacular translation of the Canon was indeed heretical, because it asserts that Our Lord said "all men" when it is de fide by the unanimous interpretation of the plain sense of Holy Writ that He actually said "for many".

"With good reason are the words "for all" not used...." Catechism of the Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan. The Sacraments. The Eucharist.

For what it's worth, I agree with you on this issue, John. To me, it is plainly heretical.

John Lane wrote:
I have yet to get a traditional Catholic thinker, layman or cleric, to agree with me. That includes all of the men you might think of immediately, Vince, knowing me and my circle as you do. I still can't understand why my case isn't valid, but the reaction of others forces me to the conclusion that the mistranslation does not constitute heresy after all.

Do any of these "others" give you a/any cogent, theologically-sound reason(s) for their position? I have never heard any from anyone. In my experience, they simply won't discuss it.

John Lane wrote:
I don't know why it doesn't, but apparently it doesn't.

I would not say "apparently", because it sure as heck isn't "apparent" to me...

Quite the opposite.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:05 am
Profile E-mail

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

Quote:
As you know, Vatican II contains also non-Catholic doctrines. Bishops who profess these doctrines have failed to profess integrally Catholic doctrine. If, as you claim, the episcopacy of the time of the definitive approbation of Vatican II conserved apostolical jurisdiction we must to conclude that at that time, as now, the trues sucessors of the Apostles approved, professed, defended (as you prefer) a non-Catholic doctrine. I await your position on this problem.


I agree Vatican II contains non-Catholic doctrine, as it also contains error and it contains orthodox teaching. It is a mess. I really believe in order to make sense of this, we need to establish the fact that there are different groups in relation to Vatican II.

Group 1: Those that clamored for Vatican II and used it as a mechanism to attack the doctrine of the Church. This group is made up of all active participants in the revolution.

Group 2: Those that initially were not active participants in the revolution, but were converted to it.

Group 3: Those that kept the Faith. These may have given the appearance of supporting the heretics, but never gave up their Faith. Within this third group are all remaining Catholics in the "devastated vineyard." This group is made up of sedevacantists, those who keep the Faith by resisting the Vatican II "popes," and those who remain under them, but despite that keep the Faith.

Now, you seem certain that the bishops who signed the documents have defected by their act of signing. I think that view is based on a flawed assumption that the act of signing meant that one is a heretic.

The bishops at the time of Vatican II may have signed the documents in good faith because they believed that the documents could not contain error as the pope has approved them, i.e. papal infallibility. Other bishops, who perhaps saw the serious problems with the documents may have signed thinking this was a "pastoral council," and was not binding.

It is easy to look back from the year 2013 and make a judgment about these bishops. We have the benefit of hindsight. They were in the in the haze of confusion of a man, Paul VI, called Pope, who was actively presiding over a council that was causing grave confusion. From my understanding of events, Catholics believed that Paul VI was orthodox and that it was a group of liberals that were causing all the trouble. Some may have signed the documents thinking that Paul VI would soon enough clean up the mess, and things would get back to normal. They may not have even have grasped the documents, but relied on the Pope's approval alone to ensure them that they were orthodox.

Catholics have a basic core instinct to trust authority. We are not revolutionaries. We are sheep who happily want to obey and follow our shepherd. Even the bishops to some extent are followers, they follow St. Peter's successor. They trust him, and they know that he is the guardian of the deposit of Faith. It seems to me that at Vatican II, almost all of the bishops were still in "trust mode," and had absolutely no thought of the idea that they themselves were like sheep being led to the hungry wolf.

With these thoughts in mind, I believe it is entirely possible (and I believe that) many of the bishops that signed the Vatican II documents were not public heretics.

It is not as though bishops signed some statement that was clear and iron clad heresy. They signed a confusing document that many believed was not a binding document of the Church. That is why I think it is the best litmus test for their orthodoxy would be whether they kept the Faith and either retreated not knowing what to do, remained in their see and tried to be obedient while at the same time professing Catholic doctrine, or conversely, whether they actively joined the revolution, began promoting the heresies and errors of the Council.

To your last point, you are assuming that the remaining bishops do not profess Catholic doctrine, but, how do you know? What evidence do you have. I stated to you that they more than likely say the Creeds, which is a public profession of the true Faith. Do you have any evidence that any of the bishops have kept the Faith have simultaneously professed heresy or error? This would be a strange contradiction, don't you agree? They can't be both orthodox and a heretic at the same time. They could, however, be a Catholic bishop who holds error but not heresy. That would make him sinful, but not outside the Church.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
It is not so simple, as you know, dear Mike. Because it is not sufficient to say, for example, the Nicene Creed for to be a person who profess Catholic Faith. Indeed, if this person say the Nicene Creed and, at the same time, she does not believe and she denies (for example) the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, then she does not profess Catholic Faith.


I agree, this is not simple. But, one thing we can say is that if a Catholic is professing the Nicene Creed, he is professing the Faith. I am aware that the Nicene Creed does not contain every article of Faith, but I was writing that to show you that if these bishops who are orthodox are still saying the Creed, they are professing the Faith. They may not be professing every article of Faith, but they are professing the Creed approved by the Church. That should end the argument that they are not professing the Faith.

I wish you a cordial greeting and a blessed New Year!

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:48 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
Well, what I have read is that the bishops cannot err when united with the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise, they can err.


Thus I must conclude that, about you, during a period of vance of the Holy See, the whole episcopacy can err in his magisterium?

John Lane wrote:
But this is beyond the point we are discussing. That is, what does it mean to "profess the faith"? If a bishop leaves Vatican II and says it was all good, but himself never preaches the errors we can identify in the texts of Vatican II, how exactly is he not professing the faith? And if a hundred such bishops exist, some of whom explicitly rejected the very same errors we are complaining about, then how do we arrive at the conclusion that morally the entire episcopate adopted the errors of Vatican II?


I think the problem consists in the fact that, about you, dear John, it is possible to interpret the texts of Vatican II so that their sense is not in conflict with catholic doctrine. On the contrary, for me, this is not possible. It is true that a bishop can interpret these texts in a wrong way, giving to the texts the sense that they have not, and to say that it is all good. Nevertheless, the texts are the Magisterium of this bishop or however a part of his Magisterium. If the reality is that it is not possible to make orthodox with interpretation these texts, it follows that the Magisterium of this bishop is non-orthodox.

If a bishop officially promulgates a text with doctrinal errors, but he does not realize that the text contains these errors, and he continues concretely to profess the true catholic doctrine (contradicting the errors contained in the text), then he is undoubtedly in good faith but his Magisterium is non-orthodox because he has promulgated that text.

For to collocate the issue to the plane of the whole Church, it is necessary to understand that it is impossible that the Church promulgates texts that it is not possible to make orthodox with interpretation. And Vatican II contains texts that it is impossible to make orthodox with interpretation. This is the reason for which Bp. Lefebvre fought his battle. For him it was impossible to make orthodox with interpretation, for example, the text of Dignitatis humanae on religious liberty. Now, if there are bishops which wrongly say that the texts of Vatican II are all goods, defending them, and, at the same time, they reject (professing the orthodox doctrines) the errors really contained into these texts, it follows that their Magisterium is non-orthodox (not completely!), because their Magisterium includes also the texts that they have promulgated.


Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:55 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Mike wrote:
I agree Vatican II contains non-Catholic doctrine, as it also contains error and it contains orthodox teaching. It is a mess. I really believe in order to make sense of this, we need to establish the fact that there are different groups in relation to Vatican II.

Group 1: Those that clamored for Vatican II and used it as a mechanism to attack the doctrine of the Church. This group is made up of all active participants in the revolution.

Group 2: Those that initially were not active participants in the revolution, but were converted to it.

Group 3: Those that kept the Faith. These may have given the appearance of supporting the heretics, but never gave up their Faith. Within this third group are all remaining Catholics in the "devastated vineyard." This group is made up of sedevacantists, those who keep the Faith by resisting the Vatican II "popes," and those who remain under them, but despite that keep the Faith.

Now, you seem certain that the bishops who signed the documents have defected by their act of signing. I think that view is based on a flawed assumption that the act of signing meant that one is a heretic.

The bishops at the time of Vatican II may have signed the documents in good faith because they believed that the documents could not contain error as the pope has approved them, i.e. papal infallibility. Other bishops, who perhaps saw the serious problems with the documents may have signed thinking this was a "pastoral council," and was not binding.

It is easy to look back from the year 2013 and make a judgment about these bishops. We have the benefit of hindsight. They were in the in the haze of confusion of a man, Paul VI, called Pope, who was actively presiding over a council that was causing grave confusion. From my understanding of events, Catholics believed that Paul VI was orthodox and that it was a group of liberals that were causing all the trouble. Some may have signed the documents thinking that Paul VI would soon enough clean up the mess, and things would get back to normal. They may not have even have grasped the documents, but relied on the Pope's approval alone to ensure them that they were orthodox.

Catholics have a basic core instinct to trust authority. We are not revolutionaries. We are sheep who happily want to obey and follow our shepherd. Even the bishops to some extent are followers, they follow St. Peter's successor. They trust him, and they know that he is the guardian of the deposit of Faith. It seems to me that at Vatican II, almost all of the bishops were still in "trust mode," and had absolutely no thought of the idea that they themselves were like sheep being led to the hungry wolf.

With these thoughts in mind, I believe it is entirely possible (and I believe that) many of the bishops that signed the Vatican II documents were not public heretics.

It is not as though bishops signed some statement that was clear and iron clad heresy. They signed a confusing document that many believed was not a binding document of the Church. That is why I think it is the best litmus test for their orthodoxy would be whether they kept the Faith and either retreated not knowing what to do, remained in their see and tried to be obedient while at the same time professing Catholic doctrine, or conversely, whether they actively joined the revolution, began promoting the heresies and errors of the Council.

To your last point, you are assuming that the remaining bishops do not profess Catholic doctrine, but, how do you know? What evidence do you have. I stated to you that they more than likely say the Creeds, which is a public profession of the true Faith. Do you have any evidence that any of the bishops have kept the Faith have simultaneously professed heresy or error? This would be a strange contradiction, don't you agree? They can't be both orthodox and a heretic at the same time. They could, however, be a Catholic bishop who holds error but not heresy. That would make him sinful, but not outside the Church.


Dear Mike, for the umpteenth time, I repeat that FOR ME ALL THE BISHOPS THAT IN GOOD FAITH HAVE SIGNED TEXTS OF VATICAN II ARE NOT HERETICS!!! I THINK THAT THESE BISHOPS WERE THE VAST MAJORITY!!!

For me the problem does not lies in the personal faith of the bishops. It lies in the doctrines that these bishops have officially promulgated.

About the evidence that the bishops have kept the Faith have simultaneously professed errors or heresies, you can see here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1371&p=13746&sid=02b9a40ccefcf8c466688bd2f533e36d#p13746 .


Mike wrote:
I agree, this is not simple. But, one thing we can say is that if a Catholic is professing the Nicene Creed, he is professing the Faith. I am aware that the Nicene Creed does not contain every article of Faith, but I was writing that to show you that if these bishops who are orthodox are still saying the Creed, they are professing the Faith. They may not be professing every article of Faith, but they are professing the Creed approved by the Church. That should end the argument that they are not professing the Faith.


Absolutely not, dear Mike. If they do not profess every article of Faith, it follows that they do not profess Catholic Faith!

Exemple. Ratzinger professes the Nicene Creed. Do you think that he professes integrally the Faith? Absolutely not! This means that to profess the Nicene Creed it is not sufficient for to profess the Faith, if the interested subject denies other articles of the Faith.

Mike wrote:
I wish you a cordial greeting and a blessed New Year!


Thank you, dear Mike! I wish a blessed New Year to you and to your loved ones!


Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:36 am
Profile E-mail

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

Absolutely not, dear Mike. If they do not profess every article of Faith, it follows that they do not profess Catholic Faith!

Exemple. Ratzinger professes the Nicene Creed. Do you think that he professes integrally the Faith? Absolutely not! This means that to profess the Nicene Creed it is not sufficient for to profess the Faith, if the interested subject denies other articles of the Faith.


You misunderstood me. I know that a Catholic, especially a bishop must profess the entire Catholic Faith. But, my point was that in the regular profession of Faith, a Catholic uses the Creeds given by the Church.

Do you wake up every day, and go through a dogmatic theology manual and say loudly after each teaching, "I believe!" Are bishops required to do this? I have never heard of any such law.

I realize that a heretic could say the Creed and still be a heretic. But, my point is that if a Catholic says the Creed then he is professing his Faith in the way the Church gave him to profess it. Is there another creed other than the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed that we are given by the Church to publicly profess our Faith? I have never heard of it.

We can also profess our Faith through our words and actions. This is where we may spot the heretic. But, in the case of the bishops in question, I asked you what evidence you had in any of their words or actions that may show they have defected from the Faith. You have none. So to the best of our knowledge they are orthodox until the contrary can be shown. If a Catholic behaves as a Catholic and professes his Faith then what do you have to go on to think he may be a heretic?

A cordial greeting to you as well.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:04 am
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 Mike, for the umpteenth time, I repeat that FOR ME ALL THE BISHOPS THAT IN GOOD FAITH HAVE SIGNED TEXTS OF VATICAN II ARE NOT HERETICS!!! I THINK THAT THESE BISHOPS WERE THE VAST MAJORITY!!!

For me the problem does not lies in the personal faith of the bishops. It lies in the doctrines that these bishops have officially promulgated.

About the evidence that the bishops have kept the Faith have simultaneously professed errors or heresies, you can see here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1371&p=13746&sid=02b9a40ccefcf8c466688bd2f533e36d#p13746 .


Dear Gabriele,

What is the point you are trying to make when you say, "It lies in the doctrines that these bishops have officially promulgated."?

If bishops approve an ecumenical council without the approval of the pope, then what is it worth? It does not become part of the magisterium until the Pope approves it. But, we are agreed that Paul VI was not the Pope when the documents were signed, so it lacks papal approval.

Where are you going with this?

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:40 am
Profile

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

What is the point you are trying to make when you say, "It lies in the doctrines that these bishops have officially promulgated."?

If bishops approve an ecumenical council without the approval of the pope, then what is it worth? It does not become part of the magisterium until the Pope approves it. But, we are agreed that Paul VI was not the Pope when the documents were signed, so it lacks papal approval.

Where are you going with this?


If all the bishops of the world, gathered in council during a sede vacante period, they approve some documents, of course we have not the Magisterium an ecumenical council, but we have certainly the Magisterium of the successors of the Apostles which consists in the doctrines contained into the documents that these bishops have approved and promulgated. If you do not accept that the jurisdiction of these gathered bishops may be binding for the whole Church, well, the same problem arises as soon as the bishops return to their dioceses.

A cordial greeting


Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
If all the bishops of the world, gathered in council during a sede vacante period, they approve some documents, of course we have not the Magisterium an ecumenical council, but we have certainly the Magisterium of the successors of the Apostles which consists in the doctrines contained into the documents that these bishops have approved and promulgated. If you do not accept that the jurisdiction of these gathered bishops may be binding for the whole Church, well, the same problem arises as soon as the bishops return to their dioceses.


Dear Gabriele,

In order to bind the Church to a doctrine, a council must be approved by the Pope. So, to your first point, if a Catholic is certain that Paul VI was not a Pope, then he can be certain that the documents of Vatican II did not bind Catholics.

To your second point, even when the bishops are scattered throughout the world, they "only exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in their dioceses, in moral unity with the Pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, 1960, p. 300, emphasis added.

Now, I see two problems with this. First, any bishops that were spreading the heresies and errors of Vatican II were not acting in union with a Pope, as we are certain that Paul VI was not the pope, and secondly, and most certainly they were not acting in moral union with the popes of the past, as these Popes taught the opposite of the heresies and errors of the Council.

Secondly, we do not know as a fact that all or even most of the bishops went home to their dioceses and began promulgating the teachings of Vatican II. It seems to me that many were not very enthusiastic about it, and were not professing it. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre said that 250 bishops were on his side. We do not know who they were, but I have no reason to doubt what the Archbishop said. Have you studied the writings, sermons and other public acts of these bishops? It seems to me that this would be a massive project. Without this knowledge, you are only operating under an assumption that all or at least most of these bishops were professing heresy and error in their dioceses throughout the world. The Church is much bigger than Europe, when studying this, we need to consider all of the bishops or the world, scattered throughout Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, etc.

Lastly, it seems to me that many of the Vatican II bishops did abandon the true Faith and by that lost their offices. We cannot count them any longer in the total sum of the remaining bishops. When we are talking about the bishops who returned to their dioceses, we are only talking about those that kept the Faith, not those who abandoned it. But, even among those who kept the Faith, but who perhaps taught error, we have no data to demonstrate that they in moral unanimity taught error, and secondly we know that it was not in moral unity with a pope or the popes of the past.

A cordial greeting to you as well.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:15 pm
Profile

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

In order to bind the Church to a doctrine, a council must be approved by the Pope. So, to your first point, if a Catholic is certain that Paul VI was not a Pope, then he can be certain that the documents of Vatican II did not bind Catholics.

To you second point, even when the bishops are scattered throughout the world, they "only exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in their dioceses, in moral unity with the Pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, 1960, p. 300, emphasis added.

Now, I see two problems with this. First, any bishops that were spreading the heresies and errors of Vatican II were not acting in union with a Pope, as we are certain that Paul VI was not the pope, and secondly, and most certainly they were not acting in moral union with the popes of the past, as these Popes taught the opposite of the heresies and errors of the Council.


Dear Mike,

I know that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible when all the bishops are in moral unity with the Pope. But my question concerned a sede vacante period. Now, in a sede vacante period (as today), is it possible that the true successors of the Apostles profess unanimously an error in their Magisterium? No, of course. Do you think the same? Or do you think that the true successors of the Apostles, without the Pope, can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine?

Mike wrote:
Secondly, we do not know as a fact that all or even most of the bishops went home to their dioceses and began promulgating the teachings of Vatican II. It seems to me that many were not very enthusiastic about it, and were not professing it. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre said that 400 bishops were on his side. We do not know who they were, but I have no reason to doubt what the Archbishop said. Have you studied the writings, sermons and other public acts of these bishops? It seems to me that this would be a massive project. Without this knowledge, you are only operating under an assumption that all or at least most of these bishops were professing heresy and error in their dioceses throughout the world. The Church is much bigger than Europe, when studying this, we need to consider all of the bishops or the world, scattered throughout Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, etc.

Lastly, it seems to me that many of the Vatican II bishops did abandon the true Faith and by that lost their offices. We cannot count them any longer in the total sum of the remaining bishops. When we are talking about the bishops who returned to their dioceses, we are only talking about those that kept the Faith, not those who abandoned it. But, even among those who kept the Faith, but who perhaps taught error, we have no data to demonstrate that they in moral unanimity taught error, and secondly we know that it was not in moral unity with a pope or the popes of the past.


When the bishops who have signed the texts of Vatican II and they return to their dioceses we must presume that each of them holds as good every teachings that they have signed. At least until the individual bishop says officially that the doctrine that he undersigned (containing the error) is wrong and harmful (as did Bp. Lefebvre). But until they do not do this, are you that must to prove that their magisterium is orthodox.

A cordial greeting


Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Now, in a sede vacante period (as today), is it possible that the true successors of the Apostles profess unanimously an error in their Magisterium? No, of course.


Dear Gabriele,

Do you have a source which states the above or is this an opinion that you have privately formed without authority? The bishops are protected by infallibility only when in their dioceses they teach the same faith in moral union with the Pope. They are also infallible when in they are in union with the Pope who approves the teachings of an ecumenical council.

I do not see either of these two categories with the Vatican II bishops.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
When the bishops who have signed the texts of Vatican II and they return to their dioceses we must presume that each of them holds as good every teachings that they have signed. At least until the individual bishop says officially that the doctrine that he undersigned (containing the error) is wrong and harmful (as did Bp. Lefebvre). But until they do not do this, are you that must to prove that their magisterium is orthodox.


If a bishop signs the documents of an unapproved ecumenical Council, i.e. documents that have not been approved by a Pope, does that signing mean that he has taught this to his diocese?

It is my understanding that an ecumenical council means nothing when it lacks papal approval, so what exactly are these signatures worth from the point of view of the magisterium?

Do you have a source which states, "when the bishops gather for an ecumenical council, and approve documents that are not approved by a Pope, their approval is part of their magisterium." Another way of putting it is this, "What value does a bishops signature have on a proposed document in an ecumenical council that has not been approved by a Pope?" Are you certain that the signature of a bishop on such a document is part of their authorized teaching to their diocese, their magisterium?

A cordial greeting to you as well!

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:08 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Now, in a sede vacante period (as today), is it possible that the true successors of the Apostles profess unanimously an error in their Magisterium? No, of course.


Dear Gabriele,

Do you have a source which states the above or is this an opinion that you have privately formed without authority? The bishops are protected by infallibility only when in their dioceses they teach the same faith in moral union with the Pope. They are also infallible when in they are in union with the Pope who approves the teachings of an ecumenical council.


Dear Mike, I said "No, of course" not for to impose a dogma but because it seems to me the most natural and reasonable thing. In addition, I posed you an explicit question: "Do you think the same? Or do you think that the true successors of the Apostles, without the Pope, can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine?". And your answer have not been direct. I ask you to answer: "Yes, I think that the successors of the Apostles, in a sede vacante period (that is without the Pope but not against the Pope!), can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine" or, at the contrary, "No, I think that the successors of the Apostles, in a sede vacante period (that is without the Pope but not against the Pope!), cannot unanimously teach a non-orthodoxe doctrine". I want only to know your opinion.

Mike wrote:
I do not see either of these two categories with the Vatican II bishops.


Perhaps, with the Vatican II it is happened something different.

Mike wrote:
If a bishop signs the documents of an unapproved ecumenical Council, i.e. documents that have not been approved by a Pope, does that signing mean that he has taught this to his diocese?


Yes, because if the bishop signs a document he makes own the teaching contained in that document.

Mike wrote:
It is my understanding that an ecumenical council means nothing when it lacks papal approval, so what exactly are these signatures worth from the point of view of the magisterium?


If it lacks papal approval, it means that the teachings approved for all the other bishops are not the teachings of an ecumenical council, but they remain public and official teachings of the bishops.

Mike wrote:
Do you have a source which states, "when the bishops gather for an ecumenical council, and approve documents that are not approved by a Pope, their approval is part of their magisterium."


I don’t know, I think no in these terms. And you? Do you have a source which states "when the bishops gather for an ecumenical council, and approve documents that are not approved by a Pope, their approval is not part of their magisterium"?

A cordial greeting


Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:13 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
Gabriele wrote:
"Do you think the same? Or do you think that the true successors of the Apostles, without the Pope, can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine?".


Gabriele, the answer must be "yes, this is possible" because otherwise you are postulating infallibility without the pope, who is the very lynchpin of infallibility (and unity, etc.).

Any answer other than "yes" tends to undermine the centrality and absolute importance of the papacy. This would be gravely damaging to true doctrine. Do you see this?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:50 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
Gabriele,

The other thing to keep in view is the definition of "to teach". When you consider what the bishops have "taught" you must look at what they really did actually teach, which is not the same thing as which texts did they sign under the impression that these texts agreed with true sacred doctrine. Many very good Catholic priests and bishops subscribed to semi-Arian texts under the impression that these expressed the doctrine of Nicea. They did not subscribe to those texts because the texts undermined belief in Our Lord's divinity, but precisely because they thought sincerely that those texts taught Our Lord's divinity perfectly clearly. This was a mistake of fact, as it turned out, of course. But it was not a mistake of doctrine. Those bishops did not teach error by subscribing to those texts.

Can you see the distinctions here?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Dear Mike, I said "No, of course" not for to impose a dogma but because it seems to me the most natural and reasonable thing. In addition, I posed you an explicit question: "Do you think the same? Or do you think that the true successors of the Apostles, without the Pope, can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine?". And your answer have not been direct. I ask you to answer: "Yes, I think that the successors of the Apostles, in a sede vacante period (that is without the Pope but not against the Pope!), can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine" or, at the contrary, "No, I think that the successors of the Apostles, in a sede vacante period (that is without the Pope but not against the Pope!), cannot unanimously teach a non-orthodoxe doctrine". I want only to know your opinion.


Dear Gabriele,

You threw me off when you said the statement, "of course," which led me to question your source. At least in English when one says, "or course," that would mean a very obvious thing which all would easily agree with. On this point, however, I do not agree with the assertion that "the collective episcopacy without the Pope cannot err."

To be honest, the whole crisis is not natural or reasonable from the standpoint of what Catholics expect to happen in the Church. I think if a good Catholic living in 1910 saw the Church today, he would probably faint in horror.

If I lived in any other age of the Church, I would have never thought that the bishops, almost all of them, could collectively sign a statement that included heresy and error, thinking they were binding the universal Church with a man they believed was the Pope. At any other time, I would have most likely believed the idea that such an event would happen to be an absurdity, But, we are not living in any other age except ours, and the historical fact of it is plain for all to see. It did happen.

I do not see that it is relevant whether the bishops can err during a time of sedevacante or during a time when there is a Pope. The bishops are not guaranteed infallibility except when they in union with a Pope in council teach the universal Church, or scattered about the world in their respective dioceses they teach the same Faith in moral union with the Pope. There is no other way the bishops can be infallible.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
Mike wrote:
I do not see either of these two categories with the Vatican II bishops.

Perhaps, with the Vatican II it is happened something different.


I don't think so. The teaching of the Church can be correctly applied to what happened at Vatican II, so long as it is understood that Paul VI could not have been Pope at the time of the approval of the documents of Vatican II. He may never have been Pope, or he may have fallen on that day, but all we have to know is that without Paul VI as Pope, Vatican II taught nothing to the universal Church.

The bishops cannot unilaterally teach to the universal Church, they must be in union with the Pope. We do not need to consider what happened at Vatican II as different, but to first grasp the teaching of the Church on the matter, then apply it to Vatican II.

Gabriele wrote:
Quote:
If it lacks papal approval, it means that the teachings approved for all the other bishops are not the teachings of an ecumenical council, but they remain public and official teachings of the bishops.


But who were the bishops teaching at Vatican II? They believed they were teaching the universal Church as they believed Paul VI was the Pope. They were not in their own dioceses teaching their own flocks, they were united in an ecumenical council.

But, I think the argument is unnecessary either way. Even if, hypothetically, I conceded your point, it still does not really prove anything here. If the bishops universally, without the Pope, attempt to teach the universal Church, they are fallible, not infallible, and due to this it is possible for them to err.

Secondly, to this point, if the bishops return to their dioceses throughout the world, and if they began to teach the errors of Vatican II, then they during the time of sedevacante are not in moral union with the past papal teaching, they are now teaching error, and due to this, they are not infallible. They are not in moral union with the Pope if they teach error.

But, in regards to the second point, I do not believe it has been proved that when the bishops returned to their dioceses, that all or even most of them taught the errors of Vatican II to their flocks.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:19 am
Profile

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

first of all I want to apologize for the delay of my answer.

I thank you because, in the end, you have responded clearly to my question. For you, the true successors of the Apostles, without the Pope, can unanimously teach a non-orthodox doctrine.

Well, I think that this is impossible, but not because I think that there is a power of magisterium that the bishops can exercise infallibly. Only the Pope can teach in a infallible way. Not the bishops. Not for this reason, I said, but because your convinction goes against the sentences that I have posted above:

“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”" (Pesch s.j.).

“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” (Lagrange).

And it seems to me that your convinction brings to the conclusion for which, in a sede vacante period, the Church may fall in a caos concerning the true doctrine of Christ. And this is unacceptable, even under the aspect of the indefectibility of the Church. The true Pastors may unanimously fall in the teaching of the faith: it is impossible. Indeed, in this case all the Church would be deceived into believing and this contradicts with passive infallibility of the Church.

A cordial greeting.


Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:28 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
Dear Gabriele,

There's something in what you are saying, but I think you are unclear about some distinctions. For example, you seem to be equating "profess" with "teach" when the two concepts are quite distinct. In relation to the pope-heretic thesis this distinction is very clear - all authors agree that a pope cannot teach heresy but some say he can profess heresy (i.e. as a private person, which means, not acting officially as pope, not "teaching").

Also, I simply don't agree that the assertion of Cardinal Siri that Vatican II was orthodox is the same thing as professing unorthodoxy. In his case, it was a mistake of fact. And I think this is obvious, not really a subtle point at all.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:08 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 awhile ago :)

Quote:
You mean, like Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and Thuc?

Yes. The point is, they thought it came with the sanction of Rome. And nobody regarded it as heretical, only deficient.

By the way, I have tried on various occasions to put the case that the vernacular translation of the Canon was indeed heretical, because it asserts that Our Lord said "all men" when it is de fide by the unanimous interpretation of the plain sense of Holy Writ that He actually said "for many". I have yet to get a traditional Catholic thinker, layman or cleric, to agree with me. That includes all of the men you might think of immediately, Vince, knowing me and my circle as you do. I still can't understand why my case isn't valid, but the reaction of others forces me to the conclusion that the mistranslation does not constitute heresy after all. I don't know why it doesn't, but apparently it doesn't.



Wow.... I have always been feeble, and now I know I am both old and feeble... I did not see John's reply until now......


John- you mentioned " You mean, like Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and Thuc?"

That was transitory..... after time at least Thuc saw the errors and rejected it.... I have not studied the others you mentioned in any depth. Why do you take their actions circa e.g. before 1970, and hold them to be their position of later???? Or am I missing your intent here?


Catholics want to hold that their superiors have the faith, and try to the bitter end to hold them to that, so I think your observations of actions taken by clerics near the close and shortly after of Vatican II to be superfluous at this point in time. Much like you posting on your website that stated some of Vatican II statements were “ heretical”, yet now you recently say they are not…….

I am starting to think the safest course might be to cling to a traditional group within the Novus ordo, say- the FSSP, one might have a bishop overseeing the traditional sacraments, that might indeed still be a “ successors to the Apostles “ At least this is what I am getting from the recent post on this fourm...


In Xto,
Vincent


Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:04 am
Profile

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:
I am starting to think the safest course might be to cling to a traditional group within the Novus ordo, say- the FSSP,

I would most strongly advise against this.... :shock:

I really and sincerely hope you aren't being serious when you say this! It would not take long before you would lose your Faith.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:42 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
Vince Sheridan wrote:
John- you mentioned " You mean, like Siri, Pintonello, Graber, and Thuc?"

That was transitory..... after time at least Thuc saw the errors and rejected it.... I have not studied the others you mentioned in any depth. Why do you take their actions circa e.g. before 1970, and hold them to be their position of later???? Or am I missing your intent here?


Well, I'm not convinced that Thuc ever really recognised his errors, but the point was one of principle - did these men leave the Church (and in Thuc's case return later)? Or did they remain Catholics all through? If the latter, you seem to be saying that this was only possible because of the initial confusion of the situation, and that anybody (including themselves) who made the same mistakes in, say, 1980, that they had made in 1970, was thereby not a Catholic. But you don't say why. This is also the missing principle from Fr. Cekada's position as he presented it on IA. Why is every bishop who didn't actively resist V2 a manifest non-Catholic? No answer.

I also don't accept the assertion that things are clearer now. I've heard this many, many times from anti-una-cumists, and it's never proved, just asserted. It seems to me to be a classic case of a half-truth, which makes it the opposite of the truth. Some things are certainly clearer now. For example, the evil of the New Mass became very clear by virtue of its fruits. Likewise Vatican II, in a sense. But the ecclesiology didn't get clearer with time, it got murkier, and continues to do so. Yet it's the ecclesiology which is at the back of both the "una cum" debate and the discussion about the Apostolic Succession.


Vince Sheridan wrote:
Much like you posting on your website that stated some of Vatican II statements were “ heretical”, yet now you recently say they are not…….


No, we are talking about one doctrine, that of religious liberty, and I changed my view on that more than ten years ago, Vince.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
I am starting to think the safest course might be to cling to a traditional group within the Novus ordo, say- the FSSP, one might have a bishop overseeing the traditional sacraments, that might indeed still be a “ successors to the Apostles “ At least this is what I am getting from the recent post on this fourm...


Well that isn't anything like what I think. The FSSP receives its Orders from Novus-ordained and consecrated men, who are therefore doubtfully valid. Further, there's no question of ordinary jurisdiction in the FSSP or in its supervisory structure. The whole thing is like an ersatz SSPX with a layer of deception over it.

You seem to me to keep bringing this discussion back to what we can or ought to do Vince, whereas I don't think it has any practical implications at all in that sense, at least for people like us who already avoid the evils of Vatican II and the New Mass. What it has are theoretical implications. That is, it is about having a coherent Catholic theory of the crisis. This will inevitably affect actions, in certain ways, but not in the way that you seem to imagine. It doesn't touch the question of where we ought to go to Mass, for example, or which bishops we might lawfully (and sensibly) approach for sacraments. But it might affect (I'd say it would pretty much certainly affect) whether or not a priest or a nun might be tempted to abandon tradition to re-enter the Novus Ordo milieu. It might, and I think certainly would, also affect whether an educated traditionalist adopts the sedevacantist position. The non-sede clergy that I know are not sedes because they think it's a dead end. Fr. Cekada's sedevacantism, as recently revealed, is a dead end.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Mike wrote:
Is there another creed other than the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed that we are given by the Church to publicly profess our Faith? I have never heard of it.



Actually, there would be the Tridentine Creed, largely directed against the Protestants, though. It's text can be read there, for example: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html


Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:44 pm
Profile E-mail

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

Thanks for posting that. I have never come across the Tridentine Creed. It is interesting that this Creed appears to have fallen out of use, as it was not being used, (to my knowledge) prior to Vatican II.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:47 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 Christi !


John - Many thanks for the reply. Letter from Bishop Thuc- http://www.cmri.org/thucletter.html

Quote:
did these men leave the Church (and in Thuc's case return later)? Or did they remain Catholics all through? If the latter, you seem to be saying that this was only possible because of the initial confusion of the situation, and that anybody (including themselves) who made the same mistakes in, say, 1980, that they had made in 1970, was thereby not a Catholic. But you don't say why.


I was trying to use the reasoning for bishops accepting Paul VI, circa- 1963-1970. One would have hoped the new mass even in its " conservative" form would have sprung an open rebellion from Catholic bishops ! But it did not, at least not on any scale noticed.

When indvidual bishops lost the faith and became full fedged novus ordo? That is open to discusion.
Quote:
I also don't accept the assertion that things are clearer now…….Some things are certainly clearer now. For example, the evil of the New Mass became very clear by virtue of its fruits. Likewise Vatican II,


Things are not clearer now? But then you admit the main things/points for rejecting the novus are indeed clearer now...
.
Quote:
But the ecclesiology didn't get clearer with time, it got murkier, and continues to do so


Indeed , and that is my main concern. And I have asked for deliberate analysis to work this out.


Quote:
No, we are talking about one doctrine, that of religious liberty, and I changed my view on that more than ten years ago, Vince



I guess I missed that, your change didn’t become clear to me until a few months ago on this Forum.

Quote:
You seem to me to keep bringing this discussion back to what we can or ought to do Vince, whereas I don't think it has any practical implications at all in that sense



My comments on that were based on getting a discussion on ecclesiology going in more depth. One position on this forum has been posited e.g. there might still be bishops in the novus order with ordinary jurisdiction, if so, going to a FSSP or indult Mass I would think would be an option..

If of course, it was a valid priest offering the mass.


Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:50 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:
Letter from Bishop Thuc- http://www.cmri.org/thucletter.html


Vince, I will only say that I wish he had done the things he says in that letter he intends to do, and that we had further evidence that he rejected the errors he had embraced previously. His record as a traditionalist is incredibly thin, to say the least.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Quote:
did these men leave the Church (and in Thuc's case return later)? Or did they remain Catholics all through? If the latter, you seem to be saying that this was only possible because of the initial confusion of the situation, and that anybody (including themselves) who made the same mistakes in, say, 1980, that they had made in 1970, was thereby not a Catholic. But you don't say why.


I was trying to use the reasoning for bishops accepting Paul VI, circa- 1963-1970. One would have hoped the new mass even in its " conservative" form would have sprung an open rebellion from Catholic bishops ! But it did not, at least not on any scale noticed.


I agree, but it's not relevant to the question we're addressing, which is whether or not these men left the Church. To claim that they did, we must say why. If it was their failure to reject Vatican II in toto, for example, as in Cardinal Siri's case, then we have to explain how such a failure meets the conditions laid down by the theologians and canonists for loss of membership in the Church. I don't think that case can be made. And if it can't be made for one individual, it can't be made for any individual. The date won't change the principles to be applied.


Vince Sheridan wrote:
When indvidual bishops lost the faith and became full fedged novus ordo? That is open to discusion.

Of course, and the first point to be discussed is what precisely is meant by "full fledged novus ordo". To my mind one thing is absolutely clear to nearly all traditional Catholics, and has been at every stage of the crisis, and it is this: Celebrating or accepting the Novus Ordo Missae is not, in itself, an act of apostasy (or heresy).

The proof for this proposition is abundant. No priest that I have ever discussed the question with, and that is at least dozens, perhaps scores, has ever claimed that those who celebrated or accepted the Novus Ordo Missae had to be received back into the Church. Nor do the faithful hold such a view. Why do you think that is? Is it merely because we're all very nice people, and we don't like to think ill of others? Or is it something more fundamental?

And of course, "full fledged novus ordo" would be a strange appellation for an Oriental Catholic with his Byzantine liturgy.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Quote:
I also don't accept the assertion that things are clearer now…….Some things are certainly clearer now. For example, the evil of the New Mass became very clear by virtue of its fruits. Likewise Vatican II,


Things are not clearer now? But then you admit the main things/points for rejecting the novus are indeed clearer now...


Some things are clearer, and some things are murkier, Vince, with the conclusion being that it is not reasonable to assert that everybody ought to be able to see the truth now, because "things are clear now".

One may well have moved from regarding the Novus Ordo Missae as a wonderful reform inspired by the Holy Ghost, on the grounds that the Church gave it to us, to the view that it was an absolute disaster, without thereby thinking that one has the right to reject it unilaterally. And this is especially the case when one sees that so much of the evil of the past fifty years was the direct result of men doing what they personally wanted, instead of doing their duties. This is certainly the thinking of a significant number of Novus clergy - i.e. the conservative ones.

Then take the non-sedevacantist traditionalists, and you see that what keeps them from moving to our view and rejecting the heresiarchs completely is precisely that doing so appears to involve abandoning the entire hierarchy of the Church. So the lack of clarity about the very issue we are discussing is precisely what keeps so many trads from seeing the truth about the Conciliar "popes."

There are few things which damage the truth quite as much as a bad argument in its favour. Once the bad argument is seen through, the truth is discredited, sometimes permanently. I think that's ultimately what happened with the CMRI nuns who left, by the way. Those women were saying things like "I can't believe that everybody in the Conciliar Church is evil (or no longer Catholic, or whatever)." And, "If Benedict is pope, we have to obey him!"

Somehow they had a completely messed up view of the state that the Church is in, and the status of those caught up in the Novus milieu, and when they came face to face with a few contrary facts, it wrecked their confidence in the traditionalist position. Did they adopt some kind of Indult or other sedeplenist trad position? No, they swung hard all the way to conservative Novus-ism. This was because they had been told for decades that all non-sedevacantist trad positions are totally unCatholic.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Quote:
But the ecclesiology didn't get clearer with time, it got murkier, and continues to do so


Indeed , and that is my main concern. And I have asked for deliberate analysis to work this out.


Well, we're trying to do our bit here, so I think you need to direct your request elsewhere, where the ecclesiological problem isn't recognised, or where it is treated in ways which are at best doubtfully orthodox.


Vince Sheridan wrote:
My comments on that were based on getting a discussion on ecclesiology going in more depth. One position on this forum has been posited e.g. there might still be bishops in the novus order with ordinary jurisdiction, if so, going to a FSSP or indult Mass I would think would be an option..


But how does that follow, Vince? You're not assisting at Holy Mass offered by CMRI priests because they have ordinary jurisdiction. They don't have it, and you don't care. Neither do I with respect to my priests, the SSPX. No real traditionalist ever did, right from the beginning. Immediately after Vatican II, the bishops whom everybody believed had undoubted ordinary jurisdiction were completely ignored by traditional Catholics insofar as it was necessary to secure access to the old Mass and to avoid heresy and error. So even if it were true that an Indult mass were valid (unlikely now, unfortunately), and celebrated in union with a compromising, confused, bishop whom we were convinced still somehow retained ordinary jurisdiction, why exactly would we prefer it to the mass of a priest who openly rejects the entire revolution?

I repeat, this isn't about where to assist at Holy Mass, at least not for those of us who have found safety. It is about what state the Church is actually in, and where she isn't. I write, where she isn't deliberately. We know with sufficient security where she is. It's where she isn't which is murky.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:41 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 Lane posted :

Quote:
Celebrating or accepting the Novus Ordo Missae is not, in itself, an act of apostasy (or heresy).


I would think we could all agree with that in general, some writers do not. Personally, when I was confronted with the New Mass circa 1970, it made me ill, and this was still with the pre-Vatican II architecture in place, we even wore the same surpluses as servers with the new mass as we did the old. However, its rubrics and celebration were so contrary to the Catholic theology and spirit of the Mass presented at Trent.

But yes, I thought it was coming from legitimate authority, so indeed, that gave me over 20 years of agonizing pause. But as time goes by, most can’t help but see the destruction to one Catholic Faith.

John- if a mature priest in the novus ordo told you he loves the new mass, and prefers to offer it instead of the old, would that give you some pause toward his orthodoxy?

Quote:
And of course, "full fledged novus ordo" would be a strange appellation for an Oriental Catholic with his Byzantine liturgy.


Not really, for full fledged novus ordo is more then the Liturgy, don't you think?
Quote:
Somehow they had a completely messed up view of the state that the Church is in, and the status of those caught up in the Novus milieu, and when they came face to face with a few contrary facts, it wrecked their confidence in the traditionalist position. Did they adopt some kind of Indult or other sedeplenist trad position? No, they swung hard all the way to conservative Novus-ism. This was because they had been told for decades that all non-sedevacantist trad positions are totally unCatholic.


I disagree, I knew 9 of the nuns very well. John the CMRI has never in my hearing presented what you have posted.
The 9 I knew and conversed with were greatly influenced by Duddy and Bob Sungenis along with , their own observations that Ratzinger was a traditionalist.( Sprinkling in a little Gregorian chant, incense and Latin to the Non –Hereitcal Novus Ordo missa, and all appeared well in the post-Vatican II church to them. They then began forming the view that “ they” were currently outside the church, and should return home to Rome.
But this is a whole new topic to discuss.

Quote:
I repeat, this isn't about where to assist at Holy Mass, at least not for those of us who have found safety. It is about what state the Church is actually in, and where she isn't. I write, where she isn't deliberately. We know with sufficient security where she is. It's where she isn't which is murky.


Excellant! Agree 100% .

In Xto,


Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Dear John and Vince;

I find this last quote regarding "not knowing where the church isn't" to be quite curious. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding what is being said or it is a simple matter of semantics, but I have been a sedevacantist for some 23 years and I have always operated under the premise that I knew exactly where the church "isn't" but I was murky on where the church "was".

The church, I know and am morally certain, is not in the Novus Ordo post Vatican II gang. In a nutshell that is why we are sedevacantists. Not simply because these "popes" are error laden heretics, but also because that group cannot be the church by its own definition, else we must swallow that the True Church can err, harm the faithful, promulgate faulty rites and sacraments, and on and on. Isn't that correct? Now I have always also thought what we are striving to do is find where the Church is. I have been availing myself of the sacraments under the auspices of the CMRI for the past 17 years, through thick and thin, good counsel and bad, and I continue to support Bishop Pivarunas and his community of priests even though I have several disagreements with them at times, but I do not operate under any false premise that they are the church,nor are any of the other trad groups. So am I to assume that you mean, John, that the Church is where there is a valid Bishop in the world still clinging to a presumed Jurisdiction, and if so can this Bishop meet the requirements of visibility?


Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
The problem we are facing, and I am in agreement with John is that a Pope has not declared for the Church that "John Paul II and his followers," or "Benedict XVI and his followers," are heretics or schismatics.

Because of this, there can be no group condemnation of those who are in communion with Benedict, but believe themselves Catholic, and still possess the Catholic Faith. We must then, consider those who still adhere to Benedict as Catholic until they can, with evidence, be shown to have defected from the Faith or have fallen into schism.

This must be done on an individual basis for each and every Catholic. The presumption must be innocence unless they are publicly professing heresy and pertinacity can be demonstrated. This causes a great area of murkiness for us who profess the Faith clearly and who have abandoned the conciliar church completely.

This causes a mess for us who want this to be cut and dry, like the old days when a Pope ruled the Church. With a Pope, we would not have this problem, but we are witnessing something never envisioned in the Church, a long-term interregnum with a publicly heretical anti-pope leading what is considered to be the Catholic Church.

We can be certain of certain facts which are beyond dispute in this discussion. There must always be at least one bishop who is a member of the hierarchy in the world, and I would further argue that there must be at least one member of the Roman Clergy, as the diocese of Rome can never defect.

The trouble we are all having is that we cannot easily point to one of these bishops, but we do know they exist. The fact that to the best of our knowledge that they adhere to an anti-pope does not by that fact mean they have defected in the Faith. So, where does that leave us?

We know who many of these bishops are, but we lack the knowledge about each one to know if they have kept the Faith or if they have defected. The same could be said of the Roman Clergy, and for that matter all lawfully appointed clerics around the world.

In order to solve this problem, practically speaking, I believe that we would need a large enough body of Catholics to grasp the true state of affairs in the Church and begin to take steps to end the crisis. If the SSPX, for example recognized that Benedict is not a pope, I believe they would have the resources and manpower to work to identify and assemble the remaining bishops and Roman clergy to elect a Pope. It seems to me that the power to end this crisis was always given to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he created, and they still have that power to this day.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:22 am
Profile
Site Admin

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

I find this last quote regarding "not knowing where the church isn't" to be quite curious. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding what is being said or it is a simple matter of semantics, but I have been a sedevacantist for some 23 years and I have always operated under the premise that I knew exactly where the church "isn't" but I was murky on where the church "was".

The church, I know and am morally certain, is not in the Novus Ordo post Vatican II gang. In a nutshell that is why we are sedevacantists. Not simply because these "popes" are error laden heretics, but also because that group cannot be the church by its own definition, else we must swallow that the True Church can err, harm the faithful, promulgate faulty rites and sacraments, and on and on. Isn't that correct? Now I have always also thought what we are striving to do is find where the Church is. I have been availing myself of the sacraments under the auspices of the CMRI for the past 17 years, through thick and thin, good counsel and bad, and I continue to support Bishop Pivarunas and his community of priests even though I have several disagreements with them at times, but I do not operate under any false premise that they are the church,nor are any of the other trad groups. So am I to assume that you mean, John, that the Church is where there is a valid Bishop in the world still clinging to a presumed Jurisdiction, and if so can this Bishop meet the requirements of visibility?


Dear Tommy,

I think you're clear on where the Church is - you're a member, as are the CMRI clergy you rely upon, and many other traditional Catholics that you know. So in that sense, to that extent, the matter is clear. And I agree, we sedes are clear that the Church is not in Benedict - that is, he ain't the visible head of the Church or even a member of it. Likewise at least most of his henchmen, Muller, Kasper, et al.

As for what I meant, it's really very well explained by Mike in his post immediately above - which of the Novuses, to use a term I often hear but never seem to see in writing (is it spelled that way?), are still Catholics?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:45 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,

Vince Sheridan wrote:
John- if a mature priest in the novus ordo told you he loves the new mass, and prefers to offer it instead of the old, would that give you some pause toward his orthodoxy?


More than give me pause. I'd be thinking, "You cannot be a Catholic!"

Vince Sheridan wrote:
Quote:
And of course, "full fledged novus ordo" would be a strange appellation for an Oriental Catholic with his Byzantine liturgy.


Not really, for full fledged novus ordo is more then the Liturgy, don't you think?


Yes, of course, but a lot of what we think of as "Novus" is absent in the East. Some of it - particularly the ecumenism - is present, as well.

Vince Sheridan wrote:
I disagree, I knew 9 of the nuns very well. John the CMRI has never in my hearing presented what you have posted. The 9 I knew and conversed with were greatly influenced by Duddy and Bob Sungenis along with , their own observations that Ratzinger was a traditionalist.( Sprinkling in a little Gregorian chant, incense and Latin to the Non –Hereitcal Novus Ordo missa, and all appeared well in the post-Vatican II church to them. They then began forming the view that “ they” were currently outside the church, and should return home to Rome.
But this is a whole new topic to discuss.


It is, but I don't think you've touched the question of fundamental causes, Vince, which is why were those women open to Mike Duddy's puerile nonsense in the first place? And it isn't really a question of what "the CMRI" has presented, and especially not in the last twenty or so years. A lot of the damage was done in the early days by Schuckardt. A lot more has been done by Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn, completely outside of the CMRI.

Vince, in trying to understand what was going on, and what their intentions were, I asked one of them directly, if she really were sincerely convinced that Benedict is pope (as she made clear - she was not open to discussing the question), why not join the SSPX? Her answer was, the SSPX position is not Catholic. The status of Benedict was therefore the central and most important determinant, which is, frankly, fanatical insanity. A lawfully disputed question can't determine everything else, and most especially not questions such as whether a liturgy is good or evil, or whether some doctrinal propositions are orthodox, or whether some new laws are compatible with divine law. These things all stand or fall by comparison with the faith, with divinely revealed truth. They are not, and cannot be, judged solely in the light of a lawfully disputed matter such as whether or not one individual claimant is truly pope.

The Sanborn-Cekada line on this makes all of the resistance to Paul VI unlawful until, and except for, sedevacantism - when that finally appeared. I've pointed out many times that such a position makes the Church disappear for a few years, then re-emerge as a sliver of her former self. This is inadmissible, obviously.

Let me put it in very simple terms. The conclusion that Paul VI was not pope followed from the observation that his reforms were not Catholic. The certitude that the reforms are not Catholic precedes, and is superior in character to, the judgement that Paul VI was not pope. The dependency is absolutely clear. For Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn, this is exactly reversed. For them, since it is unlawful to reject the reforms initiated by a true pope (until he's dead, a la Pius XII and the Holy Week ceremonies), there can be no question of resisting any reform, or indeed even questioning the goodness of any reform, until and unless one has determined that the reform did not come from a true pope. And if you find that circular, you're quite right. It's nonsense. Since the Church cannot give evil, the reforms must be good, and if they're good, why would one question the validity of the pope's claim?

Also, as an aside, if their position on the Holy Week liturgy were sound (i.e. one can reject the reforms of a true pope, as long as he is dead and you judge that the reforms panned out badly over the longer term), it would certainly justify the rejection by sedepenists of the reforms of Paul VI. He is, after all, quite dead, and his reforms panned out very badly, I think we all agree. Likewise the '83 Code was promulgated by a fellow who is now, mercifully, dead. So the next time somebody mindlessly repeats the mantra that sedeplenist trads are "disobeying the pope", demand to be told exactly which command of a living pope the sedeplenist trads are disobeying, since apparently those are the only commands that really bind...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John, after reading your post I would like to ask, why then be a sedevacantist?


Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Are you asking, if one doesn't buy the Cekada-Sanborn line, then why be a sedevacantist?

One answer is, because the Church cannot give evil. Another is, because Benedict isn't a Catholic, and therefore he isn't the pope. Another, and it's really a variation on the second argument, is that the Church does not have the characteristics of the Conciliar church, therefore that organisation is not the true Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
I'm saying that if a Catholic can resist the man he considers pope then why bother going down the "sede" road.

I can have my pope and eat him too! :D


Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:55 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 Christi !

Mike posted

Quote:
If the SSPX, for example recognized that Benedict is not a pope, I believe they would have the resources and manpower to work to identify and assemble the remaining bishops and Roman clergy to elect a Pope. It seems to me that the power to end this crisis was always given to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he created, and they still have that power to this day.


I guess this scenario /theory is as good as any :) So the remaining 3 SSPX bishop start camping out at emeritus homes in Rome, and selected diocese around the world.. to the point of convince those retired clerics that no we have not pope, and then convince them to elect a new one.

Personally. I like my scenario---- A St. Paul like conversion in St. Peters...... benedict is stumbling down the walkway.... and behold a flash of lightning with the voice " Benedict, benedict, why to you persecute me" ???


It would be better if this occurred at the Wednesday audience, thus a public miracle of conversion.

In Xto,

Vincent


Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:57 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Quote:
I'm saying that if a Catholic can resist the man he considers pope then why bother going down the "sede" road.


Cam,

The reason why is that the "resist" position is permissible because you are resisting an anti-pope, and not a pope. Such behavior would never happen if we were dealing with a Pope to begin with.

A Catholic has has a duty to the truth. The position which holds that Benedict or his predecessors were popes is gravely illogical and if followed to its logical ends can lead to ideas against the Faith. It could lead Catholics to believe that Pope's could teach heresy to the universal Church and remain Pope or it could lead Catholics to believe that the sacramental rites of the Church could be evil or impious.

The duty of a Catholic during this crisis must be to apply correct Catholic principles. It is good that Catholics initially reacted by withdrawing and resisting the anti-pope, but we are long overdue for a serious discussion on how Catholic principles apply to this situation of a publicly heretical "pope" who has taught heresy and has given evil laws to the universal Church.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:08 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:
If the SSPX, for example recognized that Benedict is not a pope, I believe they would have the resources and manpower to work to identify and assemble the remaining bishops and Roman clergy to elect a Pope. It seems to me that the power to end this crisis was always given to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he created, and they still have that power to this day.


I guess this scenario /theory is as good as any :) So the remaining 3 SSPX bishop start camping out at emeritus homes in Rome, and selected diocese around the world.. to the point of convince those retired clerics that no we have not pope, and then convince them to elect a new one.

Personally. I like my scenario---- A St. Paul like conversion in St. Peters...... benedict is stumbling down the walkway.... and behold a flash of lightning with the voice " Benedict, benedict, why to you persecute me" ???


It would be better if this occurred at the Wednesday audience, thus a public miracle of conversion.

In Xto,

Vincent


Vincent,

I do not know if you were kidding or not, but your scenerio would end this and it would be easy as the remaining bishops and the Roman clergy already, (apparently), recognize Benedict. All that is needed is for him to become a Catholic again, and this could end that way.

When I said the SSPX had the means and the manpower to end the crisis, I was not just referring to them visiting the bishops and the Roman Clergy, I also envisioned a massive worldwide Rosary Crusade to end this crisis. They have the ability to do such a thing, and they did it already for the consecration of Russia. Because of the SSPX millions of Rosaries were said for that intention, I just wish they had not stopped it. They should have kept it going until a Pope consecrated Russia.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:12 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 !


John, I think the subject of the departed CMRI nuns is a topic of a new thread. But.....

Quote:
It is, but I don't think you've touched the question of fundamental causes, Vince, which is why were those women open to Mike Duddy's puerile nonsense in the first place? And it isn't really a question of what "the CMRI" has presented, and especially not in the last twenty or so years. A lot of the damage was done in the early days by Schuckardt. A lot more has been done by Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn, completely outside of the CMRI.


John, I am no expert or councilor to these nuns, however, I did as stated know 9 of them very well. Of the total that had left 2 left because they reached the conclusion they did not have a vocation. The others, I believe a total of 12 formed the novus ordo new congregation in Spokane- The Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church.

In my conversation with them, it was not Fr. Cekada's position, but the simple fact JP2 was an easy target to say " he cant be pope". While, yes, the simple dressing up in the Gothic Cope and Miter, along with Gregorian chant, incense and a little Latin was enough for these nuns to say-- " In Benedict, we have a papa."

With the 2005 and onward clandestine meetings with double agent Duddy ( he was a teacher at the Mount) , and Mother Katrina's long standing affiliation with Bob Sungenis, ( she was quoting him to me as far back as 2001) this played a huge roll in turning them.

Recall around late 2005 with Benedict “elected” ? Bob Sungenis did a major 180% turn. His writings and website prior, had been walking close to the sede position. He then as mentioned cleaned house, and went toward the post-Councilor hierarchy. He had his “ new confession” posted for about a year stating sedevcantism was a dead end, and we indeed have a pope.

Less than 20 minutes after your debate with Bob, Mother Katrina approached him and within my ear shot, told him he had won, and now there is no turning back, they will indeed leave the CMRI.

So, they thought they were outside the church, and must return to Rome i.e. the Novus ordo.

Now, this is old information, some have posted their conversion testimony’s on their new website.

Quote:
Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn


John- you have mentioned Fr Cekada a few times now during this discussion. While there is allot to respect about his writings and person, I have never ( though somewhat reluctantly, given his formal theology training and Holy Orders, not to mention his great intelligence) agreed with his Una Cum position, nor his rejection of Pope Pius XIIth Holy Week Rites. But I do look to him as a good priest and theologian.

After reading your exchange with him on IA, I did email him to ask if he would write an article on Ecclesiology in the present situation. I for one am wondering if the respectable Traditional Bishops to not indeed have a role to play from God, that is beyond “ supplied” jurisdiction. Pre-Vatican II theologians never for saw what is occurring over the past 50 years and counting.

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:29 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 !

Quote:
do not know if you were kidding or not, but your scenerio would end this and it would be easy as the remaining bishops and the Roman clergy already, (apparently), recognize Benedict. All that is needed is for him to become a Catholic again, and this could end that way.



I was not kidding, even though my tone was a little flippant. It would be a wonderful miracle, and give God Glory in the highest !
And think of the witness to humility, with his covnersion, he would also seek " conditional consecration as a Bishop in the tradtional Rite".

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:34 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
Cam wrote:
I'm saying that if a Catholic can resist the man he considers pope then why bother going down the "sede" road.

I can have my pope and eat him too! :D


Cam, can you explain why it is unlawful today to refuse the New Mass whilst believing that Paul VI was pope, if it's lawful to reject Pius XII's Holy Week reforms?

I'd say, Cekada and Sanborn would have to admit that the sedeplenist has as much right as they do to hold fast to what they believe in, when it comes to the acts of dead popes.

The same argument applies to every law in the 1983 Code, which was promulgated by a now-dead man.

That's all I was saying about that. I'm not even saying that Cekada and Sanborn are wrong in principle. Their position looks to me to be somewhat probable. All I'm doing is pointing out how it wrecks their own criticisms of sedeplenist trads on the major issues of our day - the New Mass and the other sacramental rites, and the New Code.

My own position is that Paul VI wasn't pope. I also believe that he didn't act as pope, in the sense that his key acts did not meet the definition of public acts of the pope, as described by the theologians. We're all aware that popes can act either as popes, or in their private capacity, but few seem to know what that actually means. Well, it means at least this: if another Catholic, on objectively reasonable grounds, disputes that a given act was really a public act of the pope, then even if one disagrees with him on the matter, one cannot accuse him of taking an unCatholic position.

It's entirely reasonable to point out that Paul VI did not legislate anything regarding the Novus Ordo Missae. He merely ordered it to be published. Therefore the existing law (chiefly encoded in Quo Primum) remained in force. And as we all know, Quo Primum lays down that all priests may use the Tridentine Missal.

So that's a major reason why I detest the accusations of those who attack the "recognise and resist" position as non-Catholic. Their position, explained properly (n.b. it often isn't explained properly, just as sedevacantism is very often explained improperly by sedevacantists) and circumscribed within proper limits, is a Catholic position. That is, it is obviously lawful - indeed necessary - to refuse heresy and impiety even if one thinks that they have been imposed by the Holy Father.

But as Mike says, we have a duty to the truth. There are further implications of the crisis, and we ought to recognise them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
Cam, can you explain why it is unlawful today to refuse the New Mass whilst believing that Paul VI was pope, if it's lawful to reject Pius XII's Holy Week reforms?


I'm not sure that it is - perhaps you should take it up with Cekada and/or Sanborn.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:22 am
Profile

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 am
Posts: 41
New post Re: Fr. Laisney vs Bp. Williamson on ecclesiology
John Lane wrote:
I detest the accusations of those who attack the "recognise and resist" position as non-Catholic. Their position, explained properly (n.b. it often isn't explained properly, just as sedevacantism is very often explained improperly by sedevacantists) and circumscribed within proper limits, is a Catholic position.


If the "R&R" position is Catholic then as I said, why be a "sede" - why even contemplate going down that road?

I would suggest that most "sedes" came to their current convinctions because the "R&R" position was, at the very least, untenable.


Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:37 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 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.