It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:16 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Bp. Williamson on Infallibility 
Author Message

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Mike Larson wrote:


I remember having a conversation with a priest-friend right after Francis was elected. We agreed that it would ultimately be a good thing because there could be no more of this Benedict-the-friend-of-tradition nonsense. In other words, we thought Bergoglio's ascendancy would help many people "snap out of it." I'm not sure it has. Maybe it's too early to tell.



I think he (Bergoglio) is having that effect, slowly but surely. I know it did for me personally, and a few other people that I know of. I was (and still am) a pretty enthusiastic new convert and had read/heard from somewhere that it was a common Catholic practice to put a picture up of the pope at home and remember to pray every day for him. I thought this was a good idea so off I went to track down a picture of the new 'pope' Francis. I did try to pray for him (as the pope), I really did. But as the months went by and he started doing his little interviews it was getting harder and harder. Then came his infamous interview where he said he didn't believe in a Catholic God (amongst other 'gems'). This statement completely shocked me to my core, I mean completely shook me and I think the scales began to drop from my eyes. I ended up having to take Bergoglio's picture down and putting up a picture of St Pius X to replace it, I could not even look at his picture any longer. In wrestling with the consequences for weeks, I came to the inescapable conclusion that there was simply no possible way I was in any type of 'communion' with this man, supposedly the Vicar of Christ. One or the other of us is not a Roman Catholic it is as simple as that. I don't know what that says about me, but there it is and I still think that way. That was when I began to open up and start reading a bit (somewhat timidly) about sedevacantism. When the 'canonization' date of John XXIII and JP II was announced last fall, that accelerated my study of both the canonization process and sedevacantism (much of it reading here). After the so-called canonizations went through as planned, I couldn't see any other possibility than to admit that it is impossible that Francis can be truly the Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious body that he leads is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, so I had to admit to myself that yes, I am a sedevacantist, one of those weirdo's :D

On the plus side, being busy with all the reading I was doing on the canonization question/sedevacantism, it seems I ended up completely missing the SSPX 'Resistance' train.

And so here I am on the Bellarmine forums now.

Luke


Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Mike Larson wrote:
I remember having a conversation with a priest-friend right after Francis was elected. We agreed that it would ultimately be a good thing because there could be no more of this Benedict-the-friend-of-tradition nonsense. In other words, we thought Bergoglio's ascendancy would help many people "snap out of it." I'm not sure it has. Maybe it's too early to tell.


My circle of friends have been changing over the past five years but one who is a staunch supporter of the indult but prefers the SSPX and would be one of the "Benedict-the-friend-of-tradition" fellows is more supportive of the papacy of Bergoglio than ever--"if only he truly understood the situation". My extended family is incredibly happy about "Who Am I to Judge-Bergoglio" and could not possibly care less that doctrine is being changed at an even greater pace. My brother told me (and this is a direct quote), "To call what is simply an attempt by the Catholic Church to make the Mass more relatable to the average Catholic heresy is hyperbole of the highest degree." He is happy that the Church (in his eyes) is updating its concepts of sexuality since one of his best friends recently married his long time (homosexual) partner. He has no interest knowing the truth and, in fact, has no problem with the idea that what was once considered to be truth was actually just silly notions of backwards people of the past.

No. I no longer think many people will "snap out of it". I think that there will be very few with faith left on earth when Christ comes again.


Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:06 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Mike Larson wrote:
Well, I agree with all that and with Fr. Gleize's basic juridical assertion. I am uncomfortable only with such an assertion as the bulwark to explaining the crisis. If you keep the post-conciliar claimants as real popes but explain the mess by a mere lack of rule-following, then you risk making something of a mockery of the papal office.


Oh yes, there's nothing left of it on that hypothesis. A shell, inhabited but inanimate, never showing a sign of life. It's a bankrupt theory. My only purpose is in analysing accurately the orthodoxy of their specific points of doctrine.

Mike Larson wrote:
Thanks much for these recommendations. My reading is piling up, and I am a slow reader, but I look forward to learning more about (and from) these fellows.


You're welcome, as the Yanks say delightfully. I'm a very slow reader, btw. Always have been. My nickname in high school was "Professor" and it was well-deserved insofar as I read incredibly slowly.

Mike Larson wrote:
Yes, a heroic response, for sure, but is his resistance enough to say that the promulgation was not universal? It wasn't universal in the sense that every single individual bishop was "on board," but it certainly was universal in the general sense of the word, considering that the Church, all over the world, adopted a whole new way of being, thinking, speaking, and so on.


Yes, but again, on the basis of what the theology manuals say, we're looking for a specific doctrine taught by the moral universality of the bishops, and that's precisely what they were not, so to speak, precise about. Do you see?

Mike Larson wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Absolutely. Look, if you had described Vatican II in 1950 as a hypothesis for theologians to consider, you'd have been laughed out of the room. It was the most improbable thing that ever happened. Other than the Incarnation and the Redemption, of course...


Rare company, that.


Sorry, got carried away there. The point is that improbability not not equal impossibility. It happened, as other supremely improbable things have certainly happened.

Mike Larson wrote:
Right, it would look like that. But then is it really the Church he is seeing? As you have mentioned before, the moment at which the thing that appears to be the Church ceased being the Church does not seem to be definite--at least not in all locations at once--though the end of Vatican II or the worldwide implementation of the new mass might be candidates for such a moment. But whenever and however it happened over time, I think we can safely say that when something which appears to be the Church ceases to teach, it is not actually the Church we are observing but something else entirely.

John, thanks as always for the ongoing discussion. Most interesting and helpful.


No worries, as we say down here, instead of "you're welcome," which is much more elegant. :)

There's an equivocation in this that makes it hard to follow.

"The Church" as used by my heretical high school teacher meant the Conciliar Church. It doesn't "teach" he said. He was right. His name is Br. Murray and I hope he reads this one day - he must be over eighty by now, so high time he realises the evil he did, and repents of it. May God have mercy on his soul.

"The Church" as you and I mean it is the Catholic Church, subsistent yet obscured, and in such a way that we cannot identify her bishops still teaching. On that ground we can say, loosely speaking, that she doesn't teach any more either. This is her Holy Saturday, her apparent death and burial.

I agree with your comments entirely. The thing that most people seem to ignore, or perhaps they are not grasping the importance of it, is the fact that there is an ongoing process which began with the advent of Roncalli and which is still operative. That process involves the substitution of the true Church by a fake, one member at a time. It began gradually, then happened rapidly, slowed down, sped up again, etc. The kind of language which implies some definite date when one thing was switched for another is nonsense. It isn't factual. Occult heretics are not completely invisible heretics, they're just disguised heretics, and they remain members of the Church, which is why St. Pius X referred to them as "in the very veins of the Church." That is what makes them so dangerous. They are Catholics, yet they enemies of the Church, working assiduously to destroy her, striking at her very roots, the faith itself. Those who come out into the open, as countless men have in the Vatican II era, cease being Catholics, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that many others - probably the greater number - remain Catholics and therefore obscure the Church herself by their ambiguity and hesitant external heterodoxy. This reality doesn't appeal to mathematicians (like, for example, Guerard, a serious mathematician, or Tissier, another), but it's real and has to be accepted at the risk of a completely inaccurate picture of the Church.

This is why I say, as I have many times, that the comment, "The Church based in the Vatican is not the Catholic Church," is ambiguous and thereby potentially obscures the truth. It's OK when understood in a certain, limited, manner. But it's untrue if it implies, as it generally does, that the Catholic Church is not in and of Rome. The local Church of Rome is indefectible, and always subsists. So somehow it subsists today in that city and I think that means it has clergy. Further, it is that body of clergy which will elect a true pope at some point. Perhaps that body of subsisting Catholic clergy will be supplemented by some or many converts from Modernism, say after some miraculous intervention, but nevertheless it exists today. This we know by the light of faith, which cannot deceive.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
John Lane wrote:

This is why I say, as I have many times, that the comment, "The Church based in the Vatican is not the Catholic Church," is ambiguous and thereby potentially obscures the truth. It's OK when understood in a certain, limited, manner. But it's untrue if it implies, as it generally does, that the Catholic Church is not in and of Rome. The local Church of Rome is indefectible, and always subsists. So somehow it subsists today in that city and I think that means it has clergy. Further, it is that body of clergy which will elect a true pope at some point. Perhaps that body of subsisting Catholic clergy will be supplemented by some or many converts from Modernism, say after some miraculous intervention, but nevertheless it exists today. This we know by the light of faith, which cannot deceive.



I have a question about this. When we say the local Church of Rome, or the Roman Clergy, what exactly does this mean? Is it just as the words imply, the Catholic clergy of the diocese of Rome, or does it mean now the clergy residing in/attached to the Vatican ? Would this include for instance the parish clergy of Rome, the curia clergy, all the titular bishops etc ?

I am probably over thinking this, but I just wanted to be sure I understand precisely what is meant by the "the local Church of Rome" since it's indefectible, it sounds important :)


Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Luke, it means the diocese of Rome, so that is a body of Christian faithful and some clergy. I think it implies that the clergy must be incardinated in the diocese of Rome, so we are not talking about traditionalist priests who happen to reside there, for example.

The theologians say that since the indefectibility of the Church is formally in the local Church of Rome, the rest of the Church could be wiped out - but some of the clergy and people of Rome must survive, for then the Catholic Church remains in existence.

This doctrine is one of several which should keep us diffident in our opinions about the crisis!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Thank you John, and also Cristian who sent me this link by Fr Fenton " The Local Church In Rome" which certainly helped to clear things up!

Some here may also want to read it:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... recnum=608

Now reading this over it is true that the Roman Church will survive as per the teaching of Holy Mother Church buuut, I'm sure I am not the only one that has noticed that the Romans specifically and even Italians more broadly (not to mention the Spanish and Irish) haven't exactly been at the frontlines of the trenches, battling for and providing leadership to the traditionalist movement to preserve the Catholic Faith. Unless I have completely missed something obvious, I would love to be proved wrong. It seems to me the impetus and the leadership for tradition have been primarily French-Anglo (with some notable exceptions like + de Castro Mayer). The only prominent traditionalist Italian names I can think of off the top of my head are Fr Luigi Villa and Romano Amerio, but I am not sure if either is a Roman. It has seemed to me a bit of a 'mini-mystery' within the greater mystery of the overall crisis how seemingly uninterested the Italians and Spanish, for example, have been in the faith of their fathers. I may be wildly off, but at least my impression has been that 'Tradition' has been by far the strongest in France and the Anglo countries and perhaps Germany/Switzerland. Am I wrong on my impressions? English is my native (and basically only) tongue, so I may easily have missed the forest for the trees so to speak.


Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
No, you're quite right about Italy, and Spain of course. Spain appears to have only a few hundred trads across the entire country! Spain is an interesting case actually, because if you read about the level of religion prior to the civil war it was appalling. Mass attendance in some districts was as low as 5%. The civil war did that country an enormous amount of good, with a strong resurgence of religious practice. However, once Franco was gone and the Communists took over, it was all downhill again. Portugal has done a lot better, but I suspect that religion was never at such a low level in that country as it was in Spain. Certainly not since 1917 anyway.

This brings us to a potentially relevant point that I have been pondering, regarding that mysterious phrase of Our Lady at Fatima - "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved..." - the ellipsis is original. Here's my thought: in Portugal the Novus Ordo Missae is pretty much universal. What is it? The practice of the faith (or, more accurately, the defective practice of the faith). It isn't belief, as such. And I have heard that the Portuguese do maintain the faith itself. That is, they are not commonly heretics, in contrast with, say, the French, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Americans, et al. If this is true, then the wording of that phrase makes perfect sense. They maintain the dogma of the faith, but like everybody else, they have been deceived in what is the right way to practice that same faith.

Also, of course, the ellipsis indicates that something substantial followed on from the phrase and it could be anything, but what if it were something like, "even though the practice of the faith will be corrupted by a new liturgy"? So the message would be, "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, despite the Novus Ordo Missae which will destroy the faith everywhere else."

Anyway, just a thought. And of course, it reminds us that the true virtue of faith and acceptance of the deception that is the New Mass are able to subsist in the same person. This we already know - we see it often when people wake up and come back to Tradition, people who have never consciously chosen the New Mass over the old. And to return to our starting point, this same explanation could apply to Rome, where it may be that many of the faithful and junior clergy, and even some of the senior clergy, are not heretics but are merely deceived temporarily...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
The latest EC addresses the same questions - infallibility, Tradition and the magisterium.

Quote:
Number CCCLXVI (366) July 19, 2014

TRADITION’S PRIORITY
________________________________________

The word “Magisterium,” coming from the Latin for “master” (“magister”), means in the Church either the Church’s authoritative teaching or its authorised teachers. Now as teacher is superior to taught, so the Magisterium teaching is superior to the Catholic people being taught. But the Catholic Masters have free-will, and God leaves them free to err. Then if they err gravely, may the people stand up to them and tell them, however respectfully, that they are wrong? The question is answered by truth. It is only when most people have lost the truth, as today, that the question can become confused.

On the one hand it is certain that Our Lord endowed his Church with a teaching authority, to teach us fallible human beings that Truth which alone can get us to Heaven – “Peter, confirm they brethren.” On the other hand Peter was only to confirm them in that faith which Our Lord had taught him – “I have prayed that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk. XXII, 32). In other words that faith governs Peter which it is his function only to guard and expound faithfully, such as it was deposited with him, the Deposit of Faith, to be handed down for ever as Tradition. Tradition teaches Peter, who teaches the people.

Vatican I (1870) says the same thing. Catholics must believe “all truths contained in the word of God or handed down by Tradition” and which the Church puts forward as divinely revealed, by its Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium (one recalls that without Tradition in its broadest sense, there would have been no “word of God,” or Bible). Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.

Yet souls do need a living Magisterium to teach them the truths of salvation inside Catholic Tradition. These truths do not change any more than God or his Church change, but the circumstances of the world in which the Church has to operate are changing all the time, and so according to the variety of these circumstances the Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths. Therefore no Catholic in his right mind disputes the need for the Church’s living Masters.

But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

Kyrie eleison.


The key question is left unaddressed. Who is the infallible judge of what belongs to Tradition and what doesn't?

Quote:
Vatican I says moreover that this Magisterium is gifted with the Church’s infallibility, but this infallibility excludes any novelty being taught. Then Tradition in its broadest sense governs what the Magisterium can say it is, and while the Magisterium has authority to teach inside Tradition, it has no authority to teach the people anything outside of Tradition.


Leaving aside the novelty of these expressions, which are ambiguous, and deservedly so precisely because they are novel ("to teach inside Tradition" - what does that mean?), the fact remains that infallibility is a charism that assures a person (or persons) will teach without the possibility of error, given certain conditions: and one of those conditions is NOT any quality in the doctrine taught, for if it were, then the claim would be circular. That is, if the consistency of a doctrine with Tradition were a test of infallibility, then infallibility would essentially mean inerrancy, and would have no logical or practical value.

Further, the reaction of the people of Constantinople was not merely to reject Nestorius's doctrine - it was to reject Nestorius's claim to the See of Constantinople - "an emperor we have, but no bishop!"

Why cannot, or will not, Bishop Williamson address these points? I say, because his theory can't handle them. They don't fit. He would not know what to say about them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Catholic God

I am not sure why people are upset with P. Francis saying he does not believe in a Catholic God. I understood it as him saying that God is not only in the Catholic churches. He is everywhere. In the mosques, temples, mecca... you name it, He is there. We cannot limit God, and appropriate Him. He is God of all. Believers and Infidels. He certainly was a Jew. You might ask, "Then is He a Muslim?" "A Buddhist?"

I'll let you answer that.


Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:28 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Like so many things these heretics have said, the scandal is real and yet they have ways of explaining themselves away (or, more commonly, others explain for them). In this case the natural meaning of what he said is that God is not a specific Being with known attributes, a God Who has revealed Himself, and revealed Himself in a specific religion - which is what the Catholic Religion is: The religion of God. So yes, He is the Catholic God, the God of the Catholic Religion, precisely because the Catholic Religion is His Revelation, and all other religions are false and man-made substitutes, imitations which from the Devil's point of view exist in order to deceive men about God and His will.

Frankie's a clever guy. If he wanted to open men's minds to the fact that there is only one God and get around their prejudices, he could have easily said something like I just wrote. There would be a hundred ways of approaching it so as to get an orthodox message out in an innovative way so as to try and pry the minds of the ignorant open, but he chose to say that he doesn't believe in a Catholic God. What did that do? It scandalised the faithful, and confirmed the prejudices of the unfaithful. When this became apparent, did he issue some correction? No. Does he issue corrections on other occasions? Yes, he does, when he might be thought to be a "bigot" by worldly people. Then he issues corrections. But not when he scandalises the faithful. What do you think these actions reveal about his mind and intentions?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:49 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
John Lane wrote:

Frankie's a clever guy. If he wanted to open men's minds to the fact that there is only one God and get around their prejudices, he could have easily said something like I just wrote. There would be a hundred ways of approaching it so as to get an orthodox message out in an innovative way so as to try and pry the minds of the ignorant open, but he chose to say that he doesn't believe in a Catholic God. What did that do? It scandalised the faithful, and confirmed the prejudices of the unfaithful. When this became apparent, did he issue some correction? No. Does he issue corrections on other occasions? Yes, he does, when he might be thought to be a "bigot" by worldly people. Then he issues corrections. But not when he scandalises the faithful. What do you think these actions reveal about his mind and intentions?



I asked a little while back about past anti-popes teaching error to the Church. When I think about the fact that not a single anti-pope in history has tried to teach error to the Church, I am still completely blown away by that idea. We really are in uncharted waters in this present crisis aren't we ?

hic sunt dracones...


Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
Now this from Fr. Ripperberger:
Quote:
A distinction must be observed between a judgment being true and a judgment being infallible. A true statement adheres to reality and in the case of a theological judgment, the judgment or statement adheres to what is revealed by God Who is Truth Itself. An infallible statement is also a true statement but which also contains the notion of the statement having certitude, in that the statement cannot contain error.

From Magisterial Authority , by Fr. Chad Ripperger, quoted in this review: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... .html#more


Fr. Ripperberger didn't go to a traditional seminary where philosophy was taught?

The difference between a statement issued infallibly and one not issued infallibly is not that one has certitude and one doesn't. The difference between them is not even in the degree of certitude - a "fallible" statement may well be truly certain.

No wonder it's taking so long for even the most basic of concepts to be clarified in the minds of trads!

Apparently, Fr. Ripperberger "buttresses" his assertion that popes can err in their official documents by quoting Bellarmine on Honorius. Leaving aside the fact that the Honorius case consisted entirely of private letters to one individual, letters which didn't see the light of day until after Honorius's death, and therefore were absolutely not acts of the magisterium, let's see how well the proof works. Here's the passage from Bellarmine that he quotes:
Quote:
Whatever the truth or falsity of that, as St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice, bk II ch. 30, notes: “It must be noted, that although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived from corrupt examples of the VI Council, and Honorius was reckoned falsely to be a heretic, nevertheless we cannot deny, in fact Hadrian with the Roman Council, nay more the whole 8th general council had sensed, in the case of heresy a Roman Pontiff can be judged. Add, what would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she would be compelled to acknowledge a manifestly prowling wolf for a shepherd.”


Bellarmine's point? Honorius wasn't a heretic, but the case does show that the Church regards heretics as liable to be judged by the Church, which means that she does not regard any heretic as pope - "what would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she would be compelled to acknowledge a manifestly prowling wolf for a shepherd." Is Fr. Ripperberger trying to prove himself wrong?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Bp. Williamson on Infallibility
John the only thing going on in my head, with the response of Mr. Ripperberger is this video.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mztqVm4g0Y[/youtube]

At this point a sedeplenist trying to argue intelligently only leads to this inevitable path.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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.