FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Williamson- Rotten Apples
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(05-14-2011, 10:14 PM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]While I am curious about why people speak of two Churches, I can't say that this article by Jean Madiran does much for me. This was written pro Marcel Lefebvre, but did the Archbishop himself speak this way?

Here are some quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre:

“For the problem of Écône is the problem of thousands and millions of Christian consciences, distressed, divided and torn for the past ten years by the agonizing dilemma:  whether to obey and risk losing one’s faith, or disobey and keep one’s faith intact; whether to obey and join the destruction of the Church, whether to accept the reformed Liberal Church, or to go on belonging to the Catholic Church

“It is because Écône is at the heart of this crucial problem, seldom til now posed with such fullness or gravity, that so many people are looking to this house which has resolutely made its choice of belonging to the eternal Church and of refusing to belong to the reformed Liberal Church.”

3 September 1975 Letter to Friends and Benefactors (No.9)
p. 144 - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Part One, by Michael Davies.
__________________________

“…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience!  To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…”

1980 Ordination Sermon, 27 June 1980
p. 210 - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume Three, by Michael Davies
____________________________

“Well then, we understand.  We now know with whom we have to deal.  We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church!  And this is why we heave the right and the duty to refuse this obedience.  …I believe that I have th right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals…..it seems to me that I wouuld have th reight to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?”  “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person?  Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?”

1978 Ordination Sermon
p. 209 - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume Two, by Michael Davies
________________________________

“It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church.  But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” 
p. xiii I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre


Also, although in this famous one he does not refer to 2 "churches," he does refer to 2 Romes.

Quote:Declaration of November 21, 1974:

    “We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

I could add more quotes if I had time, but hopefully you get the idea.
(05-15-2011, 12:59 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 10:37 AM)justlurking Wrote: [ -> ]That was written before JPII was made Pope and before Assisi. I think it is a dangerous idea.

Mmm... an idea from the 60s versus an idea from St. Robert Bellarmine.  I wonder which one is traditional. Hmmm...
I guess the new mass would fail the litmus test as well.
(05-15-2011, 12:59 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 10:37 AM)justlurking Wrote: [ -> ]That was written before JPII was made Pope and before Assisi. I think it is a dangerous idea.

Mmm... an idea from the 60s versus an idea from St. Robert Bellarmine.  I wonder which one is traditional. Hmmm...
I'm see your point, JayneK. I've used the 'two churches' expression in the past, meaning it figuratively. But now I see that it doesn't really hold up.
I think it makes perfect sense.  You take the nourishment from the good of the apple and avoid the rotten which can do the body harm.  All of it is apple, some of it is bad.  Avoid the bad and you should be fine.

We didn't ask for this mess, it was put upon us.  It is up to us to use the intellect God gave us to avoid that which is bad for our souls health, not just grin and bear it while eating the rotten part of the apple.  It just so happens that the powers that be have made parts of the Mass as well as the Magesterium bad.  They introduced worms into the apple.  They created the separation, knowing not everyone would dive into the rotten part of the apple.  But not calling it what it is, rotten, gets no one anywhere.
(05-15-2011, 07:22 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 12:59 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 10:37 AM)justlurking Wrote: [ -> ]That was written before JPII was made Pope and before Assisi. I think it is a dangerous idea.

Mmm... an idea from the 60s versus an idea from St. Robert Bellarmine.  I wonder which one is traditional. Hmmm...
I guess the new mass would fail the litmus test as well.

Of course.  I don't think it is news to anybody here that the NO is not very traditional.  The new information is that talking about "two Churches" is not very traditional either.
A new mass, new catechism, new code of canon law, new formation of priests, new rules for religious, new relationships with the enemies of the Church, etc.,etc., etc.   How much more of the Church can change before it becomes something else? All of this is very frightening and confusing to say the least.  I know the gates of hell will never prevail, but maybe like our Lord's passion, it will seem all is lost.
(05-14-2011, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I question whether one ought to post Bishop W's kyrie eleison comments.  He has been forbidden by his superior to speak or write publicly which, as far as I know, he is obeying.  These are sent out in a private newsletter.  But if people then distribute them publicly they become complicit in disobedience.

I have looked into that the best I was able with the SSPX albeit indirectly, a long time ago, actually, and the conclusion was that it's OK to post them on the forum.  If I hear different from +W or +Fellay or such, then I will, of course, not allow them.

I would guess at this point, years later, they realize they are being posted here and would tell me if I needed to not allow it.  I like +W and wouldn't want to cause him or the SSPX problems. Smile
(05-15-2011, 08:42 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]A new mass, new catechism, new code of canon law, new formation of priests, new rules for religious, new relationships with the enemies of the Church, etc.,etc., etc.   How much more of the Church can change before it becomes something else? All of this is very frightening and confusing to say the least.

Well it is frightening and confusing, but these things have been shifting and changing throughout the history of the Church.  And the Church survives. 
(05-15-2011, 08:42 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2011, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I question whether one ought to post Bishop W's kyrie eleison comments.  He has been forbidden by his superior to speak or write publicly which, as far as I know, he is obeying.  These are sent out in a private newsletter.  But if people then distribute them publicly they become complicit in disobedience.

I have looked into that the best I was able with the SSPX albeit indirectly, a long time ago, actually, and the conclusion was that it's OK to post them on the forum.  If I hear different from +W or +Fellay or such, then I will, of course, not allow them.

I would guess at this point, years later, they realize they are being posted here and would tell me if I needed to not allow it.  I like +W and wouldn't want to cause him or the SSPX problems. Smile

Thanks for the clarification.
(05-15-2011, 08:21 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it makes perfect sense.  You take the nourishment from the good of the apple and avoid the rotten which can do the body harm.  All of it is apple, some of it is bad.  Avoid the bad and you should be fine.

We didn't ask for this mess, it was put upon us.  It is up to us to use the intellect God gave us to avoid that which is bad for our souls health, not just grin and bear it while eating the rotten part of the apple.  It just so happens that the powers that be have made parts of the Mass as well as the Magesterium bad.  They introduced worms into the apple.  They created the separation, knowing not everyone would dive into the rotten part of the apple.  But not calling it what it is, rotten, gets no one anywhere.

I think that this imagery is consistent with Bellarmine's ecclesiology because there is one apple.  He didn't have a problem with making distinctions between good and bad parts of the Church.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10