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
I have no clue, but perhaps "modernists" were teaching "modernism" in the seminaries as early as 1930??
(05-16-2011, 11:37 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 12:21 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 11:14 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]No one is the head of two Churches.  You are either Catholic or you are not - that's the essence of being Catholic.  You're either in or you're out - there's no half way.

If the Pope is a material heretic, he could be the head of the Catholic Church while propagating a heretical version at the same time. 

I find it extremely unlikely that a man who attends and graduates from university*, becomes a peritus at Vatican II, and who is elected bishop, cardinal or Prefect of the CDF and then Supreme Pontiff doesn't know the teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, and so is able to err in good faith (i.e. material heresy).  How is that possible?!  In other words, how can there be a grey area with regard to heresy when the men under discussion are so highly educated?


* Pope John Paul II earned two doctorates in sacred theology, while Pope Benedict XVI earned one.

What does education have to do with it? Nearly the entire educated Church world succumbed to modernism - THAT'S why Pope St. Pius X called it the deadliest heresy in the history of the Church. 
(05-16-2011, 11:43 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no clue, but perhaps "modernists" were teaching "modernism" in the seminaries as early as 1930??

Sure looks that way.

Pope St. Pius X only sent the modernists underground for a while - it took all the way to V2 before they were able to take charge.

Pray for our Holy Father the Pope, Benedict XVI!
(05-16-2011, 11:31 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 11:10 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see him saying that it is the goal of Modernists to destroy the Church.  He says that modernism is an error that if accepted will destroy the Church.  I agree.  I have spent a lot of time among liberals and Modernists.  In my experience, they are well-intentioned.  This does not take away from the wrongness of their beliefs or the importance of opposing them.


I will attempt this again................. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within;

Here we have Pope St. Pius X explaining the very thing you are disputing, if not outright denying.

1) Modernists are the enemies of the Church - by their very nature, an enemy seeks to destroy it's adversary - in this case, the adversary of the modernist is the Church. This particular enemy shows no mercy except the advancement of it's goal. Agree or disagree?

For further education - enemies (modernists) seek to "put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within". Modernism will not work any other way - it MUST be  authorized from within. Think "Trojan Horse". The enemy, as you have already admitted, is within the hierarchy, as you said: I am not denying that there is modernism within the hierarchy.

Here we have Pope St. Pius X supporting the point I was making. He said that we have to leave out the internal disposition of the soul of which God alone is the judge.  That means we cannot speak of their goals and motivations, only their stated  beliefs and actions.  And these latter are very wrong and destructive.  I completely agree with what he has written here, but not the implications you are drawing from it.

(05-16-2011, 11:31 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I am not denying that there is modernism within the hierarchy nor that this is a grave problem.  I just don't think that "reign" is the right word to use.  As far as I can tell, our positions are not all that different and the disagreement is primarily in what words best describe the problem.  If you were not so quick to dismiss me as a modernist for using different words, I think you would see that we have significant amounts of agreement.

Not so. You choose to believe - if I may be so bold as to place words into your mouth - that this is a "kinder, gentler form of modernism" - as if there were such a thing.

That definition above is akin to saying that there are some devils who don't care if they secure your soul - or that Our Blessed Mother does not really care about your soul............IOW - there is no such thing.

The very fact that the NO has *not* been abrogated proves that Modernism reigns within the hierarchy of Holy Mother the Church - can you understand that?

The words you place in my mouth do not represent my view.  I think that the modernism we face today is just as pernicious and dangerous as it has ever been.  The very fact that Summorum Pontificum was promulalgated shows that it does not reign.
(05-16-2011, 11:45 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 11:43 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no clue, but perhaps "modernists" were teaching "modernism" in the seminaries as early as 1930??

Sure looks that way.

Pope St. Pius X only sent the modernists underground for a while - it took all the way to V2 before they were able to take charge.

Pray for our Holy Father the Pope, Benedict XVI!

Yeah, that's what I thought... I knew it was pretty early before VII opened.

And I am praying for him, trust me!
Stubborn,
Did the Modernists become as such willingly or by mere accident?

Without treading on dangerous ground, then-Fr. Ratzinger, by his own admission (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966), knew very well what the Church's traditional teaching was and where he stood.  What's more, then-Fr. Wojtyla was taught by none other than the 20th century's greatest Thomist, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.
(05-16-2011, 11:47 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Here we have Pope St. Pius X supporting the point I was making. He said that we have to leave out the internal disposition of the soul of which God alone is the judge.  That means we cannot speak of their goals and motivations, only their stated  beliefs and actions.  And these latter are very wrong and destructive.  I completely agree with what he has written here, but not the implications you are drawing from it.

Yes, but the external achievements are present. The "implications" have not only come to fruition and manifested themselves, they've been the norm for the last 45 years - why do you deny this?


(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The words you place in my mouth do not represent my view.  I think that the modernism we face today is just as pernicious and dangerous as it has ever been.  The very fact that Summorum Pontificum was promulalgated shows that it does not reign.

Can you understand (not "believe") that the  Summorum Pontificum as offered is actually nothing new? That the same thing (tho worded differently) has actually been offered before?

IOW, "Accept the OF and we will grant the EF" ---which is the same as saying: "accept (what has proven itself as) the destruction of the faith and we will grant the promulgation of the true faith - so long as it's destruction is the ordinary form".
(05-16-2011, 11:55 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Stubborn,
Did the Modernists become as such willingly or by mere accident?

Without treading on dangerous ground, then-Fr. Ratzinger, by his own admission (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966), knew very well what the Church's traditional teaching was and where he stood.  What's more, then-Fr. Wojtyla was taught by none other than the 20th century's greatest Thomist, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.

There is, at this time, no way to place a finger exactly.

IMO, the modernists of V2 fame were already in position during the time of Pope St. Pius X - and he saw this.

With his authority as Pope, he sent them "underground" because they were exposed! Within the next 80 to 100 years, their strength laughed at authority and they "pounced when the moment was right." JMHO based on what has happened since the mid 1960s.

To believe that there are not two different churches falls RIGHT IN LINE with the modernist agenda. IOW, one can walk into any NO (or in my case, view the "reverent" NO on EWTN) then walk into a TLM and agree that both are merely different forms, but the same. This is purely diabolical brilliance.

Any sane human being can plainly see that these are two completely different forms of worship.
One is the Holy Sacrifice - one is something else. Both are a lex orandi.

 

If we were to use more traditional terminology, then we'd simply and correctly say that there is but one Holy Catholic Church, and pertinacious heretics are not within her fold.

I understand what's meant when it's said that there are two Churches -- the Catholic and the Conciliar -- but I find it easier to be blunt about the matter.  Wolves (i.e. bad bishops), by becoming formal heretics, lose all authority and place themselves outside of the Ark.  Why beat around the bush?

I hope you don't interpret me to be disagreeing with you (necessarily).
(05-16-2011, 12:29 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]If we were to use more traditional terminology, then we'd simply and correctly say that there is but one Holy Catholic Church, and pertinacious heretics are not within her fold.

I understand what's meant when it's said that there are two Churches -- the Catholic and the Conciliar -- but I find it easier to be blunt about the matter.  Wolves (i.e. bad bishops), by becoming formal heretics, lose all authority and place themselves outside of the Ark.  Why beat around the bush?

I hope you don't interpret me to be disagreeing with you (necessarily).

I don't necessary need to interpret anything - I understand what you are saying - I simply am blunt in saying that the conciliar church is not "The Church".

"The Church" as handed down from the time of the Apostles ceased officially (and obviously) when the NO was mandated.

Today, we have two different lex orandi's which = two different Churches ipso facto.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10