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 - Meg - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 12:03 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:59 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.

I'm referring to the SSPX here, not the modernists to whom Bp. Williamson is referring. So you think that the SSPX needn't reconcile, because they have the truth, and that's what's most  important?
Authority only being a secondary concern?


Before SSPX reconciles with Rome, it's most important that Rome first admit that there is a crisis that Rome is responsible for. That first step on Rome's part is a must. Until then, the sick minds in Rome will continue "running not on truth but on authority."

Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office. - Pascendi


What would be the purpose of the SSPX reconciling at all? Obviously the bishop believes that one only has to have truth.

And he doesn't answer at all the question regarding the concerns about "schismatic mentality." No, instead, all he does is criticize and point out the faults of the supposed "Roman apostates." But pointing out the faults of those in Rome does not answer the question that was put forth to him regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this intentional, or just a blind spot?


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - TrentCath - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 12:51 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 12:03 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:59 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.

I'm referring to the SSPX here, not the modernists to whom Bp. Williamson is referring. So you think that the SSPX needn't reconcile, because they have the truth, and that's what's most  important?
Authority only being a secondary concern?


Before SSPX reconciles with Rome, it's most important that Rome first admit that there is a crisis that Rome is responsible for. That first step on Rome's part is a must. Until then, the sick minds in Rome will continue "running not on truth but on authority."

Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office. - Pascendi


What would be the purpose of the SSPX reconciling at all? Obviously the bishop believes that one only has to have truth.

And he doesn't answer at all the question regarding the concerns about "schismatic mentality." No, instead, all he does is criticize and point out the faults of the supposed "Roman apostates." But pointing out the faults of those in Rome does not answer the question that was put forth to him regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this intentional, or just a blind spot?

Your questions have been answered, continuing to go on just makes it appear as if you have one of those minds the Bishop spoke of


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Meg - 01-22-2012

My questions have not been answered, just as Bp. Williamson did not answer the question regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this an attribute of a schismatic mentality, to not see reality in its fullness?

And I'm not much worried about what anyone here thinks of me.  It's not about me.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - TrentCath - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote: My questions have not been answered, just as Bp. Williamson did not answer the question regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this an attribute of a schismatic mentality, to not see reality in its fullness?

And I'm not much worried about what anyone here thinks of me.  It's not about me.

Well if you think thats true you've got a schismatic mentality  :LOL:


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Meg - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 01:34 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote: My questions have not been answered, just as Bp. Williamson did not answer the question regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this an attribute of a schismatic mentality, to not see reality in its fullness?

And I'm not much worried about what anyone here thinks of me.  It's not about me.

Well if you think thats true you've got a schismatic mentality  :LOL:

It's unfortunate that rather than address the questions, you condemn. That's just what Bp. Williamson does.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Warrenton - 01-22-2012

It's unfortunate that rather than address the questions, you condemn. That's just what Bp. Williamson does.
[/quote]

It did not seem like Bishop Williamson did not answer the question, but more he answered the question with a different question.  Bishop Williamson did bring up an interesting point about abuse of authority:  is it possible for the Church to abuse her authority?  This is a good discussion to have with modernists, because the democratic mindset they adopt will be prompting them to answer in the affirmative, but they will also know the result of answering that way.   The SSPX has never stopped asking for reconciliation, and in this regard, is completely different from any other break-away group.  The SSPX understand, I think correctly, that nothing like the present situation in the CHurch has occurred in living memory, or indeed, in any period within the past five or six centuries at least.  It is not even similar to the Reformation.  Christ never told the Church that things would not occur outside of our experience. 

Perhaps an analogy to the present state of affairs would be the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 60s.  Rev. King and the other cicil rights leaders realized that lawful authority was immorally suppressing the rights of a minority, but not to the extent that armed rebellion would be justified.  The question they confronted was how to effect a change in the understanding of authority regarding its obligations.  That is similar to what SSPX has been doing for 45 years.  It does not deny that authority resides in Rome, but neither does the Society consent in admitting that traditionalists are, in effect, either non persons or second class Catholics.  The civil rights leaders never asked for a separate negro homeland, like some modern minorities in other countries.  The entire movement was premised on the African American desire to partake fully in the political life of the nation.  The SSPX movement, also, makes no sense other than in this context.  The talks, the prayers, the vigils, the writing, all are aimed at achieving a rapprochment with the Vatican. 

 




Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Stubborn - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 12:51 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 12:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 12:03 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:59 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.

I'm referring to the SSPX here, not the modernists to whom Bp. Williamson is referring. So you think that the SSPX needn't reconcile, because they have the truth, and that's what's most  important?
Authority only being a secondary concern?


Before SSPX reconciles with Rome, it's most important that Rome first admit that there is a crisis that Rome is responsible for. That first step on Rome's part is a must. Until then, the sick minds in Rome will continue "running not on truth but on authority."

Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office. - Pascendi


What would be the purpose of the SSPX reconciling at all? Obviously the bishop believes that one only has to have truth.

There is no point in reconciling with the current hierarchy because they are the ones in error. As such, reconciling to error only further supports the error. In this case, the authority is in error. The bishop is saying that although Rome is *thee* authority, they are sick i.e. wrong - as such, they do not teach the true faith. We are bound to both - the authority and the truth - but the truth comes before authority - not the other way around. The Bishop is saying those who follow the authority at the expense of the truth are the ones who have "Mental sickness".


(01-22-2012, 12:51 PM)Meg Wrote: And he doesn't answer at all the question regarding the concerns about "schismatic mentality." No, instead, all he does is criticize and point out the faults of the supposed "Roman apostates." But pointing out the faults of those in Rome does not answer the question that was put forth to him regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this intentional, or just a blind spot?

Those in Rome inflicted with "Mental sickness" are the ones claiming SSPX is schismatic or has the schismatic mentality. They make such claims only via their authority, without the truth. IOW, any such claim against the SSPX is  unsubstantiated because either the SSPX clings to the truth, or it clings to authority - the authority is corrupt so it clings to the truth while only obeying the authority when the authority teaches the truth.

How much clearer can it get? LOL 
 


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - TrentCath - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 01:35 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:34 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote: My questions have not been answered, just as Bp. Williamson did not answer the question regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this an attribute of a schismatic mentality, to not see reality in its fullness?

And I'm not much worried about what anyone here thinks of me.  It's not about me.

Well if you think thats true you've got a schismatic mentality  :LOL:

It's unfortunate that rather than address the questions, you condemn. That's just what Bp. Williamson does.

:eyeroll: The problem is that you think 'address the question' = get the answer I want, sadly that isn't the way it works. Your questions have been answered, you just don't like the answers you've been given much like those in Rome.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - calicatholic - 01-22-2012


The phrase "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it" can probably be interpreted many different ways, but this comment by the Bishop certainly seems to support the opposite.

(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: For the longest time the Church resisted this loss of truth, but with Vatican II that last resistance also collapsed.

At least he does not openly say he wants to be a sedevacantist...

(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: I would rather be a schismatic sedevacantist than a Roman apostate. With the grace of God, neither!

You do not have to choose either, Bishop WIlliamson, but it seems like you are leaning towards the former.  The SSPX position has never really made sense - pray for the Pope but reject the Church that he is the visible head of.  You can't have it both ways. 

(01-22-2012, 02:29 PM)Stubborn Wrote: There is no point in reconciling with the current hierarchy because they are the ones in error.

And this is exactly the attitude that seems to lead towards sedevacantism.  A house divided against itself cannot stand, yet the Church will endure.  How much weaker she is because groups like the SSPX choose to fight the fight from outside, rather than within.  I pray that they come back into full communion so we can start to address the problems in the Church.

We're certainly not going to fix this with a few conversations on the internet, but Bishop Williamson's attitude about it certainly does not seem to be heading toward a solution, either.  Good that he's not the District Superior.




Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Stubborn - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 08:12 PM)calicatholic Wrote: The phrase "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it" can probably be interpreted many different ways, but this comment by the Bishop certainly seems to support the opposite.

(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: For the longest time the Church resisted this loss of truth, but with Vatican II that last resistance also collapsed.

At least he does not openly say he wants to be a sedevacantist...

(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: I would rather be a schismatic sedevacantist than a Roman apostate. With the grace of God, neither!

You do not have to choose either, Bishop WIlliamson, but it seems like you are leaning towards the former.  The SSPX position has never really made sense - pray for the Pope but reject the Church that he is the visible head of.  You can't have it both ways. 

(01-22-2012, 02:29 PM)Stubborn Wrote: There is no point in reconciling with the current hierarchy because they are the ones in error.

And this is exactly the attitude that seems to lead towards sedevacantism.  A house divided against itself cannot stand, yet the Church will endure.  How much weaker she is because groups like the SSPX choose to fight the fight from outside, rather than within.  I pray that they come back into full communion so we can start to address the problems in the Church.

We're certainly not going to fix this with a few conversations on the internet, but Bishop Williamson's attitude about it certainly does not seem to be heading toward a solution, either.  Good that he's not the District Superior.

Based on the things you're saying, you do not believe there is a crisis either.

The crisis that prompted the SSPX to form +40 years ago has not changed for the better, only for the worse - why? ............Because the authority we are supposed to obey *is still* corrupt.

You asked:  How much weaker she is because groups like the SSPX choose to fight the fight from outside, rather than within. Aside from the fact that change from within can only originate from the top (that's because the Church is not a democracy), the hierarchy denies there even is a crisis - use *that* as your guide for reasoning why the SSPX should not join.

Meditate on it if you must but understand that it is sheer lunacy on SSPX's part, being the "sane ones", to reconcile with Rome, who is mentally sick - until Rome gets better. 

Additionally, the FSSP have been "within" for over 20 years and have accomplished absolutely nothing - a big fat zero  as regards fixing the crisis - what makes you think it'll be any different if the SSPX were to "go in"?

Too many people have no  idea why the SSPX even came into existence in the first place, probably because the same people do not believe there is any crisis, and those same people question why the SSPX don't go along for fellowship while neglecting to acknowledge that it is Rome who needs to reconcile with the truth. Is that distasteful to say? You bet it is, but that's the way this crisis goes - sorry if this is not a kinder, gentler crisis for everyone.