FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: SSPX bombshell: Williamson is out
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 11
(06-26-2012, 01:00 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

Stupidest post ever. Someone apparently thinks they're above a Traditional Catholic Bishop.

I'm pretty sure the hubris is on Bishop Williamson's part, who thinks himself above the Supreme Bishop (not to mention above his duly elected superior).
(06-26-2012, 01:36 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:45 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

"Sedevacantist-leaning" is just the latest version of "schismatic trajectory" non-sense, and this guy doesn't like Williamson's turn of phrase concerning "NewChurch."   Are you a partial communion nutbag as well?  Don't answer, I don't care. 


I prefer the pre-Vatican II member terminology. It's much more concrete. You're either a member of God's Church, or you're outside of it.

Didn't you get the memo?  We can hope all men go to Heaven now.  Even Protestants get to have communion from the hands of the (soon to be) Pope.

There is no outside to be on.

[Image: ratzinger%20communion%20schutz.jpg]



(06-26-2012, 01:38 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:00 PM)SpiritusSanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

Stupidest post ever. Someone apparently thinks they're above a Traditional Catholic Bishop.

I'm pretty sure the hubris is on Bishop Williamson's part, who thinks himself above the Supreme Bishop (not to mention above his duly elected superior).

If we are talking "duly elected superiors" and "obeying them without question", then the SSPX should have folded in 1988.  +Fellay himself is a product of a man defending truth against error.  He is the spawn of a disobedient, schismatic act (as defined by Rome at the time)

Discounting miracles, there would be no FSSP or SSPX today and no traditional schools, what Traditional masses there were would be like historical plays for classy people with good taste and a sense of history.

Are you convinced Rome does not have bad intentions?  What makes you so confident - given their history and the fact that man who is now Pope was in a position of great power and influence in 1988 and played a dirty game back then?
(06-26-2012, 01:36 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: Go back to Catholic Answers forums where they don't think.  You belong there.

The fact that I disagree with you means I don't think? I'm not really a fan of Catholic Answers, by the way. I find the posters here more interesting to read.

How much thought does it take to make a vague accusation and hurl an insult?  I wish you were more interesting to read but that kind of crap is worthless, which is why I suggest Catholic Answers.  They'll eat it up.  Throw in a good "Because obedience in all things to Christ's Vicar on Earth is the most important thing in the world." and you'll have them fawning. 
(06-26-2012, 01:31 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]I find it difficult to have such a low opinion of Bishop Fellay.

My theory is that he saw the SSPX had all sorts of problems internally (which it does) and would break up sooner or later due to various camps.  He knows that the longer a reconcilliation is left the harder it is to do.

So he's taking a chance and going back earlier than he would like on the basis that he believes God will somehow make it right in the end.

I don't know why he cannot just meet the Pope over a glass of sherry and thrash it out mano-a-mano with him, say nothing until he is confident that B16 is not trying to shaft Traditionalists (who he's admitted he does not like) and then be honest with the laity and say, "yes it is a risk, but life is full of risks."

He's handled it dreadfully.  If he had outsourced it to Indian Project Managers they couldn't have screwed it up much worse.

That could be but how could  he think that things would go okay under Benedicts papacy after everything done in the past.
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

Because being a sedevacantist is the worse thing ever. Yeah.

(06-26-2012, 01:36 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer the pre-Vatican II member terminology. It's much more concrete. You're either a member of God's Church, or you're outside of it.

That said, St. Augustine himself referred to heretics as being "in communion with" the Church on those things on which they agreed with the Church, and "not in communion" with the Church on those things with they they disagreed.  

The old, concise terminology that has been out of use for 40 years? Okay. It doesn't matter what you "prefer."

The old:

“Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity” (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868).

The new:

“The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: ‘This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him’.54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that ‘outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth’,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that ‘they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’.57

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60 … In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 (CDF, Dominus Iesus, nn. 16-17; 6 August 2000).

"Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church...’ because, it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Frankfurter Allgemine, English translation taken from newsletter of Father Jean Violette, SSPX, Toronto, October, 2000).
(06-26-2012, 02:10 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 01:36 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:45 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2012, 12:00 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Good riddance to that sedevacantist-leaning nut.

"Sedevacantist-leaning" is just the latest version of "schismatic trajectory" non-sense, and this guy doesn't like Williamson's turn of phrase concerning "NewChurch."   Are you a partial communion nutbag as well?  Don't answer, I don't care. 


I prefer the pre-Vatican II member terminology. It's much more concrete. You're either a member of God's Church, or you're outside of it.

Didn't you get the memo?  We can hope all men go to Heaven now.  Even Protestants get to have communion from the hands of the (soon to be) Pope.

There is no outside to be on.

[Image: ratzinger%20communion%20schutz.jpg]

Didn't you get the memo?  It is well known that Brother Roger Schutz converted to Catholicism.  No scandal here.  I wonder when Bishop Williamson will officially declare he's become a sedevacantist?  He definately seems to be leaning in that direction.

Quote:This conversion attracted the attention of the Swedish and German media.  The solemn ceremony of abjuration that took place yesterday contrasts with the discreet conversion of Pastor Schutz, founder of the Taizé Community in France.  The conversion was so discrete that it was not made apparent until the day of the funeral of John Paul II when Cardinal Ratzinger, today Benedict XVI, gave him communion.  Some became indignant, and are still indignant, that the future Benedict XVI would give communion to “a Protestant.”  This is because they did not know that Brother Roger Schutz had made, many years ago, a profession of the Catholic Faith.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...ersion.htm

Bullshit


1. Regarding the supposed evidence of the conversion of brother Schutz advanced by Mr. Yves Chiron, this was denied straightforwardly by Schutz's successor as superior of Taize, brother Alois. In an interview with the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, this Protestant minister affirmed precisely the opposite of Mr. Chiron. I translate his words:

    Question (La Croix): Did Brother Roger formally convert to Catholicism as the historian Yves Chiron just affirmed?

    Answer (Brother Alois): No, Brother Roger did not ever formally convert to Catholicism. If he would have done so, he would have stated it because he never hid anything about his life. Either in his books, writings, or journal, he set forth everything that he discovered and lived (La Croix, online, September 5, 2006  for full text click here).
"SHARED COMMUNION - Brother Roger Schutz, a minister of the Swiss Reformed Church and founder of the Taize community, receives Communion from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at Pope John Paul II's funeral in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican April 8. Unnamed Vatican officials said that Brother Roger's reception of Communion was not foreseen and was the result of Brother Roger being seated in a group receiving Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger."

Here is evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger judges a Protestant minister worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist.

There are several doctrinal presuppositions implicit in this act:

- the Protestant does not need to convert;
- he does not need to confess before receiving Communion;
- he lives in perpetual state of grace, etc.

Such theses are clearly against Catholic doctrine.

This recent picture may be a good reminder for those "conservatives" who pretend that everything that Joseph Ratzinger did or does is orthodox and wonderful. Because of this irrational attitude toward Benedict XVI, such syncophants are already being called the "papaboys" by some Italian press organs.

It is also an interesting document for traditionalists to keep in mind when they expect that this Pope will promote a sincere return to Catholic tradition in the Liturgy. It seems that the sincerity of Cardinal Ratzinger follows the lines of the reforms of Vatican II, as seen in the photo.

(...)

Regarding the supposed evidence of the conversion of brother Schutz advanced by Mr. Yves Chiron, this was denied straightforwardly by Schutz’ successor as superior of Taizé, brother Aloïs. In an interview with the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, this Protestant minister affirmed precisely the opposite of Mr. Chiron. I translate his words:

Question (La Croix): “Did Brother Roger formally convert to Catholicism as the historian Yves Chiron just affirmed?

Answer (Brother Aloïs): “No, Brother Roger did not ever formally ‘convert’ to Catholicism. If he would have done so, he would have stated it because he never hid anything about his life. Either in his books, writings, or journal, he set forth everything that he discovered and lived” (La Croix, online, September 5, 2006 – for full text click here.

On September 6, a communiqué in English by the Taizé Community was issued addressing other points of Chiron’s argument:

“A document of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity in Rome is used to support the thesis of a ‘conversion’ undertaken by Brother Roger, although the text says nothing of the kind. As for the Bishop Emeritus of Autun, Msgr. Raymond Seguy, he has already qualified his words. Rejecting the term ‘conversion,’ he declared to the Agence France Press: ‘I did not say that Brother Schutz abjured Protestantism, but he showed that he subscribed fully to the Catholic faith"

The communiqué gives the following reason for the strange affirmation of Bishop Seguy:

“From a Protestant background, Brother Roger undertook a step that was without precedent since the Reformation: entering progressively into a full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church without a ‘conversion’ that would imply a break with his origins” (ibid).

Then the strong final word comes:

“Whoever speaks of ‘conversion’ in this respect has not grasped the originality of Brother Roger’s search” (ibid).

So, there is no conversion. Chiron missed the target, as did those who relied on his conclusions.

Theological Ramblings Behind this Case

How can it be understood that Schutz “fully subscribed to the Catholic faith” without a conversion?

The explanation should not be sought in Catholic doctrine, but in the Progressivist doctrine of Vatican II. Indeed, what directs ecumenical and inter-religious activity in these post-Vatican II decades is the false notion that religions are set in concentric circles. The center of those circles would be the Catholic Church; the next and larger circle would be the “Church of Christ,” which would also encompass Protestant and Schismatics; the third ever broadening circle would be the “Church of God,” which would encompass those already described plus all those who believe in one God: Jews and Muslins; the fourth enlargement is the “Messianic People,” which encompasses all those who believe in any superior power that would have created the universe, such as Buddhists, Hinduists, Animists, and Masons.

The only ones who would remain outside of these concentric circles are materialists such as Communists and Agnostics, but Progressivism has managed to find points of affinity even with them. For example, they found that “the future” which Communists believe in was also a transcendental value that could correspond to the Catholic belief in the second coming of Our Lord.

This is the Progressivist theory of concentric “churches” according to which God would distribute His grace more intensely in the center, but also in the peripheral circles and bring people to salvation in all of them. Therefore, Progressivism considers obsolete the dogma that a person can only be saved inside the Catholic Church, which we believe.

It seems that Schutz had heard something of this and imagined that he was “in full communion” with Catholics. Actually, in his interview to La Croix, Aloïs reports:

“He [Schutz] often told about how, in his last meeting with John XXIII in 1963, he received from the Pope a spiritual legacy and asked him about the place of Taizé inside the Church. Making circular gestures with his hands, John XXIII answered: ‘The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles - increasingly larger, increasingly larger.’ The Pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé, but brother Roger understood that the Pope wanted to say: ‘You are already inside, simply continue on the same path.’ That is what he did” (La Croix online, ibid).

So, if anyone wants “to grasp” the meaning of Schutz’ words regarding his “full communion” with the Catholic Faith without a conversion, he should understand that according to Progressivism, Protestants are already part of the “Church of Christ,” and therefore do not need to convert.

This is why the Bishops of Autun gave Communion to Schutz and all the members of Taizé group; this is why John Paul II “celebrated the Eucharist” in Taizé; this is why Cardinal Ratzinger gave the Holy Eucharist to the Protestant Roger Schutz, and finally this is why, when Schutz was killed, Benedict XVI affirmed that he had been saved.

I feel sorry for those traditionalists who try to mesh the present day Vatican policy with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, because they do not fit together.

I hope this response can be of some help.

Cordially,

A.S. Guimarães
(06-26-2012, 03:02 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]1. Regarding the supposed evidence of the conversion of brother Schutz advanced by Mr. Yves Chiron, this was denied straightforwardly by Schutz's successor as superior of Taize, brother Alois. In an interview with the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, this Protestant minister affirmed precisely the opposite of Mr. Chiron. I translate his words:

    Question (La Croix): Did Brother Roger formally convert to Catholicism as the historian Yves Chiron just affirmed?

    Answer (Brother Alois): No, Brother Roger did not ever formally convert to Catholicism. If he would have done so, he would have stated it because he never hid anything about his life. Either in his books, writings, or journal, he set forth everything that he discovered and lived (La Croix, online, September 5, 2006  for full text click here).

Close the book.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11