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 - Habitual_Ritual - 01-24-2012

(01-24-2012, 02:04 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Phenomenology has never been condemned as far as I know.

Fox guarding the hen-house you see...


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

Im sure the CCs are very cozy in the Church family,all the while carrying on like mad evangelicals getting slayed by the spirit.And of course they were in fact a direct product of Protestant Pentecostalism.Hardly comparable with actual Catholic religious orders.

""TO SPEAK IN TONGUES YOU HAD NEVER LEARNED WAS, AND IS, A RECOGNIZED SYMPTOM IN ALLGED CASES OF DIABOLIC POSSESSION." (Msgr. Ronald Knox - Enthusiasm)

"...It arrived on my desk a few months ago as yet another unsolicited piece of bulk mail. The brochure from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, announced that "Catholic" Charismatics were about to celebrate their 30th Anniversary bash in Pittsburgh "where it all began," and for $69.00 registration, I would be welcome too. So it was that on June 27, 1997, I found myself traveling toward this Pentecostal extravaganza. I went for the purpose of observation. There was plenty to observe. I had been to the "Toronto Blessing" church about two years ago, as Catholic Family News printed an ex- pose on this new movement written by Silvia MacAhern, and I wanted to see the "worship service" for myself before going to press. The "Toronto Blessing" is a high-charged Protestant sect that could be called "Charismatic to the Tenth Power". They believe the Holy Ghost manifests Himself not only in indistinguishable tongues and body gy- rations (as was the case with the Pittsburgh "Catholic Pentecostals") but also with screams, shrieks, rolling on the floor, hysterical laughter, barking like dogs and oinking like pigs... "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2675217/posts[/quote]

I made no comment on the value of the Catholic Charismatic movement.  My only claim was that do not not have schismatic attitude.

(01-24-2012, 02:15 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: I am still waiting for actual citations from you from the SSPX illustrating their Schism as defined by the Church,not by JayneK.I have a feeling I will waiting.Here is the actual definition to help you:

St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (I don't think the Charismatics would pass St Paul's test)

"Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Why on earth would I present evidence for a position I do not hold?  I have never claimed that the SSPX is in schism.  I can't remember if I have said so here, but on CAF, I have repeatedly argued that they are not.  I am making a distinction between schismatic attitude and schism.  I have defined what I mean by "schismatic attitude" and you choose to ignore it.  This is yet another way to avoid dealing with the problem by pretending it does not exist.


Re: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column - Crusading Philologist - 01-24-2012

(01-24-2012, 02:16 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 02:04 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Phenomenology has never been condemned as far as I know.

Fox guarding the hen-house you see...

I guess, but you can even find conservative Catholics, Erich Przywara and Dietrich von Hildebrand for example, who were influenced by phenomenology and yet continued to defend traditional teachings.


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

(01-24-2012, 02:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: Asking for examples of open schism is not relevant to the question of schismatic attitude.  The attitude is a way of thinking and feeling about the Church that could potentially lead to schism.  Open schism involves acts that cut oneself from the Church or statements of position that do so.

So really then,leveling the accusation of Schismatic attitude (nice loophole) without offering evidence of schism would seem to constitute some kind of calumny.
How about some examples of a schismatic "attitude" then...cited and specific?


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

(01-24-2012, 02:28 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 02:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: Asking for examples of open schism is not relevant to the question of schismatic attitude.  The attitude is a way of thinking and feeling about the Church that could potentially lead to schism.  Open schism involves acts that cut oneself from the Church or statements of position that do so.

So really then,leveling the accusation of Schismatic attitude (nice loophole) without offering evidence of schism would seem to constitute some kind of calumny.
How about some examples of a schismatic "attitude" then...cited and specific?

I already gave examples.


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

(01-24-2012, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 02:28 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 02:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: Asking for examples of open schism is not relevant to the question of schismatic attitude.  The attitude is a way of thinking and feeling about the Church that could potentially lead to schism.  Open schism involves acts that cut oneself from the Church or statements of position that do so.

So really then,leveling the accusation of Schismatic attitude (nice loophole) without offering evidence of schism would seem to constitute some kind of calumny.
How about some examples of a schismatic "attitude" then...cited and specific?

I already gave examples.

I apologize if I missed them but could you link to those posts? Thanks



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

(01-24-2012, 12:58 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 11:48 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:43 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:01 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 09:52 PM)JayneK Wrote: When people are raising their children to think of "Novus Ordo" as a religion - one that is not Catholic- something is very wrong.

Did I miss something? Is this something new? I think you'll find people have been saying this for the last 30 years or so, certainly the Novus Ordo can be seen as a different religion in the sense as it has been so so contaminated by modernism that it is no longer recognisable as the Catholic faith. The disrespect with which Our Eucharistic Lord is treated, the woeful understanding of the Mass and The Sacrament of Penance as well as the denial of the Social Reign of Christ effectively underline this point.

It is important to point out however that the SSPX does not claim to be 'The Church' and has emphasised that point repeatedly.

It is recognizable as Catholic by millions upon millions of people.  There are some who refuse to recognize it.  That does not mean it is not recognizable.

The SSPX does not officially claim to be the Church, but there are many who, by their words and actions, show this to be their belief.  And this is why people are asking questions about "schismatic attitude".  It is a huge problem and pretending it doesn't exist does not effectively address the problem.

It wouldn't matter if millions of people did or didn't recognise it, that wouldn't make it any or less true. You appear to be committing what I like to call the 'Democratic' logical fallacy, namely the idea that lots of people believing something makes it true or vice versa or even more likely to be or not to be true, this is illogical something is either true or not and belief in it or lack thereof does not change this.

I am not committing that fallacy at all.  You have missed the point.  You made the claim that the Novus Ordo is "no longer recognisable as the Catholic faith".  While numbers are, as you say, irrelevant to truth claims, you were making a claim about recognizability.  The fact that large numbers of people recognize it is as Catholic disproves your assertion.  Now if you want to say that you personally cannot recognize it as Catholic, that is legitimate enough. 

No I am afraid that is still the democracy error, it doesnt matter if lots of people recognise it as the Catholic faith or not that does not make the catholic faith. Let me give you an example, if A who has lived in the desert all his life gets together with all his friends and decides that X (which happens to be a tree) is actually a bush, and B, who lives in the forest, comes along and says 'Er.. thats a tree' they may all laugh at him and he may be outnumbered a 100 to 1 but X is still a tree and not a bush. The relevance of this to the discussion is that the people who believe that the NO are mostly ignorant of key elements of the Catholic faith, I can guarantee most of them haven't read say Catholic literature from the 1800 or 1900's, early 20th century, if so they'd question why there was such a massive difference of beliefs. I mention those ages in particular because whilst many people may have read the writings of the saints and possibly the church fathers, edifying reading and spiritual direction is one thing, dogma is quite another and the contradictions between say Ludwigg Ott's 'fundamentals of Catholic dogma', guides for those entering the Catholic church written in the late 1800's, moral theology, denzinger and modern theology is blindingly obvious. 

A very good example of this ignorance is 'The Social Reign of Christ' it was most explicitly taught by the popes from Leo XIII to Pius XII and yet I don't know a single NO Catholic who even knows what it means, Complete ignorance of Modernism and moral theology is another example.




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

(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.

I think you've got a schismatic attitude... in fact i think you're a schismatic!  :LOL:




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

(01-24-2012, 02:01 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 01:15 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 01:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: The use of terminology like "Novus Ordo religion" and "conciliar Church" assume a fragmented understanding of the Church.

I don't think there is any assumption here.The Church,and lets exclude Tradition for one moment, is very fragmented within herself containing disparate groups like the Charismatics and Neo Cats to name just 2.The use of these terms does not constitute schism as correctly defined.I would really like some cited examples of open schism.

Catholic Charismatics do not refer to the rest of the Church as if it were a different religion.  They see themselves as a group within the Church.  There is nothing inherently wrong with various groups existing within the Church, for example, Eastern Rite, Dominicans, theologians.  What makes a schismatic attitude is how those within the group view the rest of the Church.  If one thinks of oneself as a different religion from the rest of the Church that is a schismatic attitude.

Asking for examples of open schism is not relevant to the question of schismatic attitude.  The attitude is a way of thinking and feeling about the Church that could potentially lead to schism.  Open schism involves acts that cut oneself from the Church or statements of position that do so.

No they just think the rest of us haven't got the 'fullness of the spirit' (confirmation clearly wasn't enough for them) and the church prior to V2 and since the apostolic age didn't have the holy spirit either, thats why we need a pentecost, doesn't sound very Catholic to me  ???


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

As for this nonsense of schismatic attitude, what about the dozens if not hundreds of priests and cardinals who think that V2 created a new church? or that the church prior to V2 was wrong? I think they've not only got a schismatic attitude but are really in schism with their own faith, the words you are bandying around are a double edged sword, they apply more to legitimate church authority than they do to the SSPX.