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
APPLES  ROTTING



In two ways a rotten apple may cast a little light in the darkness of today's eclipsed Church. Firstly, we do not wait for every part of an apple to be rotten before we call it rotten as a whole, yet parts of it are still not rotten. In answer then to the question whether the apple is rotten, we must make a double distinction : as a whole, yes; in these parts, yes; in those parts, no. And secondly, while apple is not rot and rot is not apple, yet the rot is inseparable from its apple and cannot exist without it. Let us apply the first part of this common sense to the Novus Ordo Mass and the "Conciliar church", the second part to the "Conciliar church" and the Papacy.



As for the New Mass, it is rotten as a whole by its Conciliar man-centredness, but while some parts are clearly not Catholic (e.g. the Offertory), other parts are Catholic (e.g. the Kyrie Eleison). Because it is rotten as a whole and slowly makes Catholics into Protestants, it is not fit to be attended, but that part which is the Consecration may be Catholic and valid. So one can say of the Novus Ordo Mass neither that it is valid so it can be attended, nor that it cannot be attended so it is invalid. In truth it may be valid in its essential part, but that is not a sufficient reason to expose one's faith to the danger of attending it as a whole.



Similarly, today's Church is rotten as a whole insofar as Conciliarism is widespread throughout it, but that does not mean that every single part of the Church is rotten with Conciliarism. So it is as wrong to condemn any part still Catholic because of the Conciliar whole, as it is wrong to excuse the Conciliar whole because of those parts still Catholic. To fit one's mind to the reality, one must distinguish both between the different parts, and between the whole and the parts.



And if we apply to today's Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the "Conciliar church" and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through  the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot. But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host. In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.



Therefore as to a Conciliar Pope, it is a genuinely useful way of speaking to say that he is one head of two churches, because by his words and actions, sometimes Catholic, sometimes Conciliar, he places himself all the time at the head of both the Catholic Church and its Conciliar rot. But that is not to say that he is the head of two churches separate in reality. It is to say that he is head of both the Catholicism and the Conciliarism in the one real Catholic Church presently disfigured all over by the Conciliar rot.



And why in Heaven's name are our Church leaders so enamoured of the Conciliar rot ?  Because of the modern longing for liberty. That is another story. But meanwhile we must pray with might and main for Benedict XVI that he may see once more the difference between apple and rot !



                                                                                  Kyrie eleison.

There are times when I question this mans sanity and at the same time I question my own.
If most of the Secular psychiatrists all diagnose us Bi Polar for thinking the TLM is the only True Mass and that the Church is run by modernists of the Judaeo-Masonic variety,  then you know  everything is turned upside down!
I personally think it's just the devil doing his work as a means to discourage us even more!!! >sad
Amen!
I disagree with Bishop Williamson about it being useful to speak of two Churches.  This way of speaking involves contradicting the ecclesiology developed by St. Robert Bellarmine which explicitly rejects that language.  And one reason he rejected it is that it was associated with the Protestant heretics.  The Bishop appears to be an intelligent and articulate man and he ought to be able to think of a way to express himself that does not contradict a Doctor of the Church.

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.
Janek, think modernism.
(05-14-2011, 07:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]Janek, think modernism.
Of course modernism is a problem.  There are ways to talk about this problem that do not involve using imagery associated with heretics.  This imagery was rejected by the Doctor of the Church most influential on traditional ecclesiology.
(05-14-2011, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with Bishop Williamson about it being useful to speak of two Churches.  This way of speaking involves contradicting the ecclesiology developed by St. Robert Bellarmine which explicitly rejects that language.  And one reason he rejected it is that it was associated with the Protestant heretics.  The Bishop appears to be an intelligent and articulate man and he ought to be able to think of a way to express himself that does not contradict a Doctor of the Church.

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.

St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't around when the Council destroyed the Church. None of the great Saints would attend the NO Mass...that is why we haven't had any great Saints since the conciliar Church was developed. Unless of course, you count JPII as a soon to be great Saint.  LOL

I get it but I have to agree with JayneK on this one.

Honestly I have never heard the "two Churches" speak until I came to FE and I'm not excited that the Bishop is using it. I know he's making a point and overall I agree with him, I just get a little antsy over the terminology, even if he assert that it's only in imagery and not in reality. It seems to lend itself much too easily to additional and unnecessary confusion.

Even in speaking of the apple and its rot, you would still only speak of 1 apple. You would find ways to express a distinction between the good part and the rotten part but you would always speak of it in terms of 1 apple. You would never use the imagery of two apples to explain the difference between the good part and the rotten part, you would use adjectives and differences to distinguish them. Why can't we do the same with the Church and speak simply of Catholic and Conciliar parts, without referring to two Churches at all?
(05-14-2011, 07:55 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't around when the Council destroyed the Church. None of the great Saints would attend the NO Mass...that is why we haven't had any great Saints since the conciliar Church was developed. Unless of course, you count JPII as a soon to be great Saint.  LOL

St. Robert Bellarmine was around for the Protestant "reformation".  I think he understood about crises in the Church.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10