FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: bp williamson 12/1 column
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called. Easily most of the present confusion comes from the Church’s biggest problem of today, which is the diabolical Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Let us attempt to disentangle some of the confusion.

“Church” derives from the Old English “cirice”, deriving in turn from the Greek word “kuriakon”, meaning “of the Lord”. Thus “Doma kuriakon” meant “house of the Lord”, and from naming the building, “church” came to mean also the people that were regularly to be found in the building.

“Catholic” Church names many a building, but principally the worldwide group of people (“katholos” in Greek means “universal”) who share one Faith, one set of Sacraments and one Hierarchy, all three having been established by the Incarnate God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his life on earth two thousand years ago. But from this original group of believers as instituted by Our Lord, other groups have regularly broken away, while still claiming to be Christ’s true Church. How then am I to know which is his true Church ?

“Christ’s Church” has four Marks, as they are called. 1 One - above all by oneness of Faith Our Lord meant to unite his Church and not to found many churches (cf. Jn. XVII, 21-23: “That they may be one”). 2 Holy - Our Lord founded his Church to bring men to the All-Holy God and his holy Heaven (cf. Mt. V, 48: “Be you perfect”). 3 Catholic - Our Lord founded his Church for all men of all lands and all ages (cf. Mt. XXVIII, 19: “Going, teach ye all nations”). 4 Apostolic - Our Lord founded his Church as a monarchy, to be ruled by the Apostle Peter and his successors (cf. Mt. XVI, 18: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock (in Greek “petran”) I will found my Church”). Wherever these four Marks are, there is Christ’s true Church. Where they are lacking, there is not Christ’s Church.

“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible ?

“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

“Official Church” means the Church as led by, and following, its visible officials. Since these today are largely Conciliar, so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks. Similarly “Mainstream Church” means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant. However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks. Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24-30).

Kyrie eleison
This seems to be a seriously problematic ecclesiology. How can this not compromise either the indefectibility or the visibility of the Church?
:safe:

Subscribing... before it was the cool thing to do.
Habemus Papam ?

tim
(12-02-2012, 12:02 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Habemus Papam ?

tim

Well, according to Bp. Williamson, yes AND no! More of the same stuff fed to SSPXers for the past forty years.
I've lost my post a few times now, so I'll only quickly state that Bishop Williamson should have stuck to using traditional terminology, instead of using "Conciliar," "Official" and "Mainstream."  One major problem faced today is that public defection from the Catholic Faith no longer immediately results in a loss of office, but now Canon Law requires, insofar as I understand it correctly, a declaration to be made by a competent authority.  The obvious problem with that is that one heretic isn't likely to discipline another, especially if they share and propagate the same errors.  So, Bishop Williamson has been forced to come up with novel categories, instead of simply stating that the public heretics aren't members of the Church.
(12-02-2012, 09:46 PM)OldMan Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-02-2012, 12:02 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Habemus Papam ?

tim

Well, according to Bp. Williamson, yes AND no! More of the same stuff fed to SSPXers for the past forty years.

What I find incredible is the folks in the pews that hold all of these contradictory notions and then think it's Reason.

tim

There have been many Councils over the years. Why is it this this last Council has birthed a New Church which is labeled Counciliar? That is a real question and not rhetorical.

Bishop Williamson wrote:
Quote:However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks. Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24-30).

OK. I agree with this statement. But then it begs the question. Why try to avoid the "Counciliar Church" at all costs? It would make sense if everything in the Traditionalist remnant manifested the four Marks.

At best, this is contradictory. At worse, I don't think the right question is "do we have a pope? I think it is more like does the Church still exist?


As I see it there are ambiguities in the Documents, which need to be defined. The problem as I see it is the limitations of language to describe accurately extremely complex ideas or interpretation of doctrine. I also see where all the "sleepers" in the Church have jumped on every part which can be interpreted in their favor to pursue their wicked agendas. Trent was an effort to build a stone fortress around the Church. . It was necessary because of the Reformation. It wasn't necessary to hide in there for 500 years.

tim

Bishop Williamson just continues to witness more and more to his lack of understanding of what "Catholic" is.

He needs some kind of help.

Pray for him.
Pages: 1 2 3