Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
Fr. Z takes another ignorant and or malicious swipe at Bishop Williamson and attempts to distract people from his very relevant comments on sacramental abuse and ambiguity in the post-conciliar sacramental rites.  My comments are in blue.

Something from SSPX Bp. Williamson… remember him?

CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULA — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 1:10 pm

I can’t access the site of SSPX Bp. Williamson, but some of you have sent me his latest message, which I look at with my emphases and comments.

I would bet Fr. Z a lavish dinner in a bird sanctuary that he has read every one of Bishop Williamson's letters.  The fact that he "can't access the site" doesn't mean he hasn't read them or been mailed them.  And considering his job in Rome at least at one time was directly concerned with the SSPX, (as he related on-air to Hugh Hewitt) odds are, he knows exactly what Bishop Williamson is talking about and is engaging in an attempt to downplay it.  And even if he didn't, it's quite irresponsible and negligent of him to comment on them from a stance of ignorance.


It has taken three issues of "Eleison Comments" to disentangle why the alleged death-bed testimony of Cardinal Lienart (EC 121) could easily be true, given that it corresponds exactly to how the validity of the Catholic sacraments has been imperilled by the Conciliar sacramental Rites introduced after Vatican II (EC 124, 125, 126).  A friendly critic thinks that I have been too concerned to defend the validity of the Conciliar sacraments. But I no more want to exaggerate their validity than their invalidity. [I didn’t see the earlier articles.  I am hoping that he isn’t saying that the sacraments celebrated according to the post-Conciliar books are invalid.]

[Let's get this straight...The bishop says a critic thinks he has been defending the validity of the sacraments too much and Fr. Z reads that as Bishop W. possibly saying "according to the post-Conciliar books are invalid?   This is an example of Fr. Z's  "zeal" to try and "put Williamson in his place."  The little qualifier of the reference to "the books" is the tip off.  He's busy "hoping" it's not this or that, instead of actually paying attention to what the Bishop is writing and had been writing for the past 2 weeks already.]   And if Fr. Z really wanted to tell the truth about the Bishop he would know that the Bishop actually helped put together the SSPX 's defense of the validity of the new form of the rite of consecration of bishop.

Also, there's not a hint of curiosity about the alleged death-bed testimony of Cardinal Lienart.  If you had read that and been ignorant of the subject of the last two columns.  Wouldn't that perk your interest? 

For indeed no reasonable person who loves the truth wants to do anything other than conform his mind to reality, because truth is defined as "the matching of mind and reality". If a situation is black, I want to call it black. If it is white, I want to call it white. And if it is varying shades of grey in between, I want to make that grey in my mind no more grey-black nor grey-white than it is in reality.

[Does Fr. Z agree with this or not?  I'm curious.  For a "say the black and do the red" kind of guy, wouldn't you think he'd want to know the difference between seeing black and seeing red?]

Now it is true that any one sacrament administered in real life will have been either valid or invalid. There are no more shades between valid and invalid than there are between pregnant and not pregnant. But if we consider the Conciliar sacraments [Is that a real distinction?  Conciliar sacraments?]  being all the time administered throughout the Newchurch as a whole, we can only say some are valid, some are invalid, but they have all been placed on a slide towards invalidity by the Conciliar Rites’ total thrust to replace the religion of God with the religion of man. That is why the Newchurch is on its way to disappearing altogether, and why the Society of St. Pius X can in no way allow itself to be absorbed into it. [So… that seems to be a "no" vote concerning the discussions going on between the SSPX and the Holy See.  I wonder what Bp. Fellay thinks about this statement by his SSPX brother.]

[Here we have a second pivot and spin. Beside the usual attempt to set Bishop Fellay against Bishop Williamson. (does Bishop Fellay want the SSPX absorbed into the Novus Ordo free-for-all?}   No actual addressing or disagreement with the assertions of the bishop, but rather a political comment.   And an illogical one at that.  The negotiations are not even mentioned.  (Fr. Z has to remember that not everyone speaks in "Vatican Code" in which he has to translate.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  And Bishop W. is not one to mask his words or intentions.)  But Fr. Z has made an interesting admission on the Fruedian level.  He views the doctrinal discussions primarily as an effort to get the SSPX to accept everything that is post-Conciliar, slide towards Religion of Man and all.   By his attitude, there is no real crisis in the Church except a few exaggerations on the left and traditionalists that just don't get "Vatican II" on the supposed "right' as part of the Hegelian dialectic. ]

But at what exact point on that slide any given priest or priests, for instance, so lose the true idea of the Church that they can no longer Intend to do what the Church does, God alone knows. It may well be that to reach that point takes more than I suggested in EC 125. Maybe it takes less, as our critic suggests. In any case, since only God can know for sure, I do not need to know. All I need to have clear in my mind is that the Conciliar Rites have put God’s sacraments on a slide away from God, and once it is clear to me that they are helping to destroy the Church, that they were even designed to destroy the Church, I should stay away from them.

Meanwhile, as to just how far down the slide is this or that priest, or even the Newchurch as a whole, I will apply the great principle of St. Augustine: "In things certain, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity". [Actually, that’s not Augustine.] And within the framework of certainties such as, within the Newchurch neither already nothing, nor everything still, is Catholic, I mean to extend to my fellow-Catholics the same liberty to judge of things uncertain as I hope they will extend to me. Mother of God, obtain the rescue of the Church !                                       

Kyrie eleison.
London, England

He sounds like a Donatist.

No Fr. Z.  He does not sound like a Donatist.  A Donatist would say that due to the low moral character of a priest, the Sacraments you administer cannot be valid.  That has nothing in common with what Bishop W. said, he was arguing that the actual intention of doing what the Church does might be replaced with a positive intention of doing something the Church does not do.  Is that so difficult to understand?  Hmmm.... On second thought, perhaps you haven't read the bishop's letters.  It seems you haven't even read this one correctly

About that phrase often attributed to St. Augustine…

[Oh... you mean the one you probably thought was by Augustine until 2006 when someone informed you that it may not be by Augustine?]

A form of this phrase, pops up at first in about 1628 in German Lutheran circles. [it's been traced back to that. It didn't pop up there as far as we know. It may still go back to Augustine for all we really know.]  It seems to have come from one Rupertus Meldinius, also known as, Peter Meiderln, in his tract entitled Paraenesis votiva pro Pace Ecclesiae ad Theologos Augustanae Confessionis:

Verbo dicam: Si nos servaremus in necesariis Unitatem, in non-necessariis Libertatem, in utrisque Charitatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostrae…. I’ll say it in a word: If we preserve Unity in essentials, Liberty in non-essentials, and Charity in both, our dealings would be in the best situation.

Anyway, it is nice to see that SSPX Bp. Williamson quoting a Lutheran writer.

Oh I can't wait to find a misquote of Fr. Z and run it up the flagpole.  Someday he's going to condemn a quote of a Pope or a saint, thinking it's Bishop Williamson or some "radtrad" and I'm going to trumpet it.  Be very careful, Fr. Z.

The second and more important part is the truth that is in the statement vs. the attribution.  If he actually knew or was willing to be honest about Bishop Williamson, he'd know that Bishop W. has recommended books by Protestants and has had a Rabbi give lectures on specific areas of Medieval History while running the Seminary in Winona. 


Messages In This Thread
Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson - by Gerard - 12-16-2009, 12:50 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)