FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp Williamson May 27 column
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Entire books have been written on the subject of religious liberty as taught by Vatican II in its Declaration of 1965, Dignitatis Humanae. Yet the Revolutionary teaching of that document is clear : given the natural dignity of every individual human being, no State or social group or any human power may coerce or force any man or group of men to act, in private or in public, against their own religious beliefs, so long as public order is observed (D.H.#2).

On the contrary the Catholic Church always taught up until Vatican II that every State as such has the right and even duty to coerce its citizens from practising in public any of their false religions, i.e. all non-Catholic religions, so long as such coercion is helpful and not harmful to the salvation of souls. (For instance in 2012 freedom is so widely worshipped that any such coercion would scandalize the citizens of nearly all States and make them scorn, not appreciate, the Catholic religion. In that case, as the Church always used to teach, the State may abstain from using its right to coerce false religions.)

Now the precise point on which these two doctrines contradict one another may seem quite limited - whether or not a State may coerce the public practice of false religions - but the implications are enormous : is God the Lord or the servant of men ? For if on the one hand man is a creature of God, and if he is social by nature (as is obvious from men’s naturally coming together in all kinds of associations, notably the State), then society and the State are also creatures of God, and they owe it to him to serve him and his one true religion by coercing false religions at any rate in the public domain (which is the State’s business), so long as that will help rather than hinder the salvation of souls.

On the other hand if human freedom is of such value that every individual must be left free to corrupt his fellow citizens by the public practice and proselytizing of any false religion he chooses (unless public order be disturbed), then false religions must be left free to flourish in the public domain (e.g. Protestant sects in Latin America today). So the difference between false religions and the one true religion is less important than human dignity. So the true religion is not so important. So the worth of God compared with the worth of man is not so important. Thus Vatican II down-grades God as it up-grades man. Ultimately Vatican II is replacing the religion of God with the religion of man. No wonder Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of St Pius X to uphold the transcendent dignity and worth of God, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in a world and Church gone mad, drunk on man’s dignity.

But now comes a religious leader who pronounced in public earlier this month : “Many people have an understanding of the Council, which is a wrong understanding.” Religious liberty, he said, “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty that is a very, very limited one: very limited!” Asked whether Vatican II itself, i.e. as a whole, belongs to Catholic Tradition, he replied, “I would hope so”.

See for yourselves the interview, given in English and accessible on YouTube under the title, “Traditionalist leader talks about his movement, Rome”. Can anybody be surprised if “his movement” is currently going through the gravest crisis of its 42 years of existence ?

Kyrie eleison.
Always interesting to see how people act when push comes to shove.
The interesting thing is to compare and contrast the recent public and private (though leaked) back and forths of the positions of Bp. W. and Bp. Fellay.

Williamson is putting the lie to the argument that "if we only follow the texts of Vatican II" everything will be alright.

His recent columns on the docs of VII and the actions of Pope Benedict (totally in line with his predecessors) indicates one of two things.  This is all a ruse to take the SSPX out as an effective force against Vatican II and all that is bad that comes from it.  Or, the nominalism that affects the minds of those enamored with Vatican II is so extreme that real communication is virtually impossible. 

Williamson is appealing directly to the documents and simultaneously showing the actions regarding ecumenism and religious liberty to both un-Catholic and rooted in both the documents and "spirit" of Vatican II. 

This consequently also puts the lie to Bp. Fellays contention that essentially "times have changed." 

Times have not changed, the documents of Vatican II are still there causing trouble, the Popes haven't changed their behavior, the crisis continues. 

Bp. Fellay has been frustrated with the slow growth of tradition and out of ideas for years now.  He should simply resign at this point, reconcile with Rome as an individual bishop and see if he can survive and effect any change on his own. 

The elected leader of the SSPX resign and go off on his own, Gerard?  Maybe you, Bishop Williamson, and Fr. Corapi should form a motorcycle gang and take your show on the road. 

If the CDF says that the "within due limits" phrase still upholds the traditional teaching on religious liberty, what will Bishop Williamson say?  Again, Bishop Williamson tells us what he thinks others believe, but that does not make it so. 
(05-27-2012, 12:36 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]If the CDF says that the "within due limits" phrase still upholds the traditional teaching on religious liberty, what will Bishop Williamson say?  Again, Bishop Williamson tells us what he thinks others believe, but that does not make it so. 

Have they said this?

Look at what the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney said on Vatican II:

Also, see what Bishop Fellay said in 2010 at the Angelus Press Conference. He talks about religious liberty.

(05-26-2012, 11:46 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]The interesting thing is to compare and contrast the recent public and private (though leaked) back and forths of the positions of Bp. W. and Bp. Fellay.

Williamson is putting the lie to the argument that "if we only follow the texts of Vatican II" everything will be alright.

His recent columns on the docs of VII and the actions of Pope Benedict (totally in line with his predecessors) indicates one of two things.  This is all a ruse to take the SSPX out as an effective force against Vatican II and all that is bad that comes from it.  Or, the nominalism that affects the minds of those enamored with Vatican II is so extreme that real communication is virtually impossible. 

Williamson is appealing directly to the documents and simultaneously showing the actions regarding ecumenism and religious liberty to both un-Catholic and rooted in both the documents and "spirit" of Vatican II. 

This consequently also puts the lie to Bp. Fellays contention that essentially "times have changed." 

Times have not changed, the documents of Vatican II are still there causing trouble, the Popes haven't changed their behavior, the crisis continues. 

Bp. Fellay has been frustrated with the slow growth of tradition and out of ideas for years now.  He should simply resign at this point, reconcile with Rome as an individual bishop and see if he can survive and effect any change on his own. 

Again from your argument all one can see is that everything is a trap. No matter what they say everything is the same and that in order for "conciliar Rome" to be worthy of the society they must be pure as the wind driven snow first or at least as shinny as the heavenly gates in order to be ready to receive the society. Well sorry there bud, Rome is what Rome has always been wolfs and sheep dressed in red, black and purple both Saints and Sinners doing the will of God and attending to His Holy Church.

The fact is that Rome has moved the concession of Dignitatis humanae and Nostra Aetate are movement, and for Rome, light speed movement on the matter.

Of course the crisis continues and when the Society is regularized the crisis will continue still it is the fight that is important not the crisis.

I would say this that Archbishop Lefevure broke with Papal authority only after it was clear that John Paul II fail to see or was not able to see the problems that the council had brought with it in a moment in which he was compelled to act. Now the same Papal authority embodied in Benedict XVI says that it sees the problem and recognizes it and tells you that it needs the society by its side to fight the modernists that as long as you are outside one can not effectively fight against this forces. According to you the Chair of Saint Peter in its hour of need should be left alone, the Roman Pontiff calls for aid but you would not aid him? if that is so then I ask, Are you not a Catholic?

Of course one would hope that Vatican II can find a place in the Tradition of the Church, but saying one hopes so isn't the same as accepting Concilliar craziness. If you watch the other parts of the interview (the additional comments available on sspx.org) Bp. Fellay says very clearly that he accepts the principle of a "hermeneutic of continuity"  - that the Council must be interpreted in light of Tradition - but says that the difficulty comes with the application of this principle (presumably because some aspects of the Council are difficult to reconcile with traditional Catholic teaching).

It will be interesting to see what happens if the regularisation occurs. 1988 wasn't the year of schism, but maybe 2012 will be?
(05-27-2012, 12:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-27-2012, 12:36 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]If the CDF says that the "within due limits" phrase still upholds the traditional teaching on religious liberty, what will Bishop Williamson say?  Again, Bishop Williamson tells us what he thinks others believe, but that does not make it so. 

Have they said this?

Look at what the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney said on Vatican II:


As Fr. Rostand reported, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not find any of the SSPX positions as non-Catholic, and the SSPX position on Religious Liberty has always been that it is not an absolute public right.  So regardless of whatever a modernist Cardinal says, the CDF gets the final say. 

(05-27-2012, 03:51 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]Of course one would hope that Vatican II can find a place in the Tradition of the Church, but saying one hopes so isn't the same as accepting Concilliar craziness.

He's taking a new tack on the council.

Quote:If you watch the other parts of the interview (the additional comments available on sspx.org) Bp. Fellay says very clearly that he accepts the principle of a "hermeneutic of continuity"  - that the Council must be interpreted in light of Tradition - but says that the difficulty comes with the application of this principle (presumably because some aspects of the Council are difficult to reconcile with traditional Catholic teaching).

The hermeneutic of continuity is BXVI's notion, not Archbishop Lefebvre's, not the SSPX's, and not Bishop Fellay's (up til recently). A new tack, in other words. This is part of what's scaring people.
Pages: 1 2 3 4