FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column (/showthread.php?tid=52569)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - JayneK - 01-24-2012

(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - TrentCath - 01-25-2012

(01-24-2012, 11:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.

No, please use facts and not opinion or preconceived ideas. This is JUST as true of JpII as Benedict XVI who has approved the Neocats, blessed the loony charasmatics, made dodgy bishops cardinal and not got rid of bad bishops. Again please lets deal with issues as they are not how you want them to be.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Freudentaumel - 01-25-2012

(01-24-2012, 01:03 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 01:02 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 12:02 AM)Gerard Wrote: The question people should be asking is why the lack of a "schismatic attitude" in the liberal parishes? Isn't the fact that they often hate the Church openly and are not considered "schismatic" in their attitude a problem?

They do have a schismatic attitude and it is a problem.  However I do not see how it is relevant to a discussion of the schismatic attitude that often appears in the SSPX.

Examples, and I mean specific and cited, would be interesting.
Bishop Williamson's column, which started this thread, is a good example.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:. I replied that in my opinion a much greater risk than that of acquiring a schismatic mentality is that of contracting "the spiritual and mental sickness of today's Romans by getting too close to them."
If you show me just one single example of a canonized Saint of the Church, advising people that getting too close to Rome is dangerous for your spirituality, I will retract it.
Even St. Athanasius, with whom the SSPX is so keen to identify, never refused reconciliation to the pope.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - JayneK - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 07:32 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.

No, please use facts and not opinion or preconceived ideas. This is JUST as true of JpII as Benedict XVI who has approved the Neocats, blessed the loony charasmatics, made dodgy bishops cardinal and not got rid of bad bishops. Again please lets deal with issues as they are not how you want them to be.

I did not say that B16 was perfect in this regard, so coming up with some examples of his mistakes does not refute my assertion.  You need to show that he made just as many bad appointments as JPII did.  B16 obviously has not had time to do so, even if he were as lacking gifts in this area as JPII.  I suspect if we were to come up with some sort of bad appointment per year measurement, we would see a difference.  Are you aware some objective measurement of this or are you just countering my opinion with your opinion?


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - TrentCath - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 02:48 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 07:32 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.

No, please use facts and not opinion or preconceived ideas. This is JUST as true of JpII as Benedict XVI who has approved the Neocats, blessed the loony charasmatics, made dodgy bishops cardinal and not got rid of bad bishops. Again please lets deal with issues as they are not how you want them to be.

I did not say that B16 was perfect in this regard, so coming up with some examples of his mistakes does not refute my assertion.  You need to show that he made just as many bad appointments as JPII did.  B16 obviously has not had time to do so, even if he were as lacking gifts in this area as JPII.  I suspect if we were to come up with some sort of bad appointment per year measurement, we would see a difference.  Are you aware some objective measurement of this or are you just countering my opinion with your opinion?

So then Benedict XVI is merely a small improvement on JPII who is in himself only a small improvement on Pope Paul VI?

I don't need to show anything, the evidence speaks for itself. Why have these bishops not been sent off in exile or forbidden to exercise their duties as bishop? Pope Benedict XVI is just as responsible as Pope John Paul II (who was a good friend of his and whom he undoubtedly advised) for failing to get rid of these bishops or discipline them properly as Pope John Paul II is in creating them.

Lets deal with some facts:

1) Pope Benedict XVI still has not celebrated the TLM in public
2)Pope Benedict XVI renewed the scandal of Assisi with Assisi 3 which which was in itself a scandalous event
3)Pope Benedict XVI has approved the neocats
4)Pope Benedict XVI has not removed the liberal bishops appointed over the last 40 years
5)Pope Benedict XVI has not created a single traditionalist bishop or cardinal
6)Pope Benedict has prayed with infidels and engaged in active participation with heretics and schismatics vis a vis the eastern orthodox churches and the anglican church

The list goes on  >:(


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Freudentaumel - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 02:48 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 07:32 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.

No, please use facts and not opinion or preconceived ideas. This is JUST as true of JpII as Benedict XVI who has approved the Neocats, blessed the loony charasmatics, made dodgy bishops cardinal and not got rid of bad bishops. Again please lets deal with issues as they are not how you want them to be.

I did not say that B16 was perfect in this regard, so coming up with some examples of his mistakes does not refute my assertion.  You need to show that he made just as many bad appointments as JPII did.  B16 obviously has not had time to do so, even if he were as lacking gifts in this area as JPII.  I suspect if we were to come up with some sort of bad appointment per year measurement, we would see a difference.  Are you aware some objective measurement of this or are you just countering my opinion with your opinion?
I have to agree with TrentCath here, I cannot see a significant change in the appointments of Bishops, but of course I can't back it up with numbers, either.
The only noticeable change that I know of (and that can also be backed up with numbers) is that under Benedict XVI the rate of Opus Dei Bishop appointments per year dropped significantly.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Freudentaumel - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: 1) Pope Benedict XVI still has not celebrated the TLM in public
2)Pope Benedict XVI renewed the scandal of Assisi with Assisi 3 which which was in itself a scandalous event
3)Pope Benedict XVI has approved the neocats
4)Pope Benedict XVI has not removed the liberal bishops appointed over the last 40 years
5)Pope Benedict XVI has not created a single traditionalist bishop or cardinal
6)Pope Benedict has prayed with infidels and engaged in active participation with heretics and schismatics vis a vis the eastern orthodox churches and the anglican church
Everything except number 6) is true.
But you can't show me any document from the magisterium, any writing of any saint, or anything similar that says that in such a case it is fine and dandy not to submit to the pope.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Tapatio - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 03:01 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:48 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 07:32 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.

No, please use facts and not opinion or preconceived ideas. This is JUST as true of JpII as Benedict XVI who has approved the Neocats, blessed the loony charasmatics, made dodgy bishops cardinal and not got rid of bad bishops. Again please lets deal with issues as they are not how you want them to be.

I did not say that B16 was perfect in this regard, so coming up with some examples of his mistakes does not refute my assertion.  You need to show that he made just as many bad appointments as JPII did.  B16 obviously has not had time to do so, even if he were as lacking gifts in this area as JPII.  I suspect if we were to come up with some sort of bad appointment per year measurement, we would see a difference.  Are you aware some objective measurement of this or are you just countering my opinion with your opinion?
I have to agree with TrentCath here, I cannot see a significant change in the appointments of Bishops, but of course I can't back it up with numbers, either.
The only noticeable change that I know of (and that can also be backed up with numbers) is that under Benedict XVI the rate of Opus Dei Bishop appointments per year dropped significantly.
it´s
May I add to that, the "Summorum Pontificum" issued Motu Proprio.  For what it´s worth
I say this in that fashion, because I haven't seen a rise in the Dioceasn TLM´s. Nor new TLM anywhere due to that decree.
I think, that in order to separate the rats from the cheese, he should outlaw or abrogate the NO mass.
Then well know who the real Catholics are.
People are just not asking for the Usus Antiquor rite.
And the bishops are real happy about this.




Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - TrentCath - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 03:04 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: 1) Pope Benedict XVI still has not celebrated the TLM in public
2)Pope Benedict XVI renewed the scandal of Assisi with Assisi 3 which which was in itself a scandalous event
3)Pope Benedict XVI has approved the neocats
4)Pope Benedict XVI has not removed the liberal bishops appointed over the last 40 years
5)Pope Benedict XVI has not created a single traditionalist bishop or cardinal
6)Pope Benedict has prayed with infidels and engaged in active participation with heretics and schismatics vis a vis the eastern orthodox churches and the anglican church
Everything except number 6) is true.
But you can't show me any document from the magisterium, any writing of any saint, or anything similar that says that in such a case it is fine and dandy not to submit to the pope.

Actually 6 is true vis a vis the visit to turkey and later London.

Your latter point =  :deadhorse:

If you honestly believe that we have to obey  the pope even when he is endangering the salvation of souls or the faith not only do you contradict several of the most learned theolgians of the Church, St Robert Bellarmine and Bl Cardinal Newman you also do not understand the Catholic Faith properly.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - JayneK - 01-25-2012

(01-25-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:48 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 07:32 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 11:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 

This is more true of JPII than of B16.

No, please use facts and not opinion or preconceived ideas. This is JUST as true of JpII as Benedict XVI who has approved the Neocats, blessed the loony charasmatics, made dodgy bishops cardinal and not got rid of bad bishops. Again please lets deal with issues as they are not how you want them to be.

I did not say that B16 was perfect in this regard, so coming up with some examples of his mistakes does not refute my assertion.  You need to show that he made just as many bad appointments as JPII did.  B16 obviously has not had time to do so, even if he were as lacking gifts in this area as JPII.  I suspect if we were to come up with some sort of bad appointment per year measurement, we would see a difference.  Are you aware some objective measurement of this or are you just countering my opinion with your opinion?

So then Benedict XVI is merely a small improvement on JPII who is in himself only a small improvement on Pope Paul VI?

I don't need to show anything, the evidence speaks for itself.

You need to present the evidence in order for it to speak. Of course you need to show something and not just make assertions. 

(01-25-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Why have these bishops not been sent off in exile or forbidden to exercise their duties as bishop? Pope Benedict XVI is just as responsible as Pope John Paul II (who was a good friend of his and whom he undoubtedly advised) for failing to get rid of these bishops or discipline them properly as Pope John Paul II is in creating them.

Lets deal with some facts:

1) Pope Benedict XVI still has not celebrated the TLM in public
2)Pope Benedict XVI renewed the scandal of Assisi with Assisi 3 which which was in itself a scandalous event
3)Pope Benedict XVI has approved the neocats
4)Pope Benedict XVI has not removed the liberal bishops appointed over the last 40 years
5)Pope Benedict XVI has not created a single traditionalist bishop or cardinal
6)Pope Benedict has prayed with infidels and engaged in active participation with heretics and schismatics vis a vis the eastern orthodox churches and the anglican church

The list goes on  >:(

Your list goes well beyond the scope of discussing appointments and removals of bishops, which is the question at hand.  Removing bishops is quite difficult and only gets done in extreme cases.  I think that appointments are a better indicator of a pope's policies.