bp williamson 5 30 column
#12
(06-04-2014, 10:01 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-03-2014, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: No, the difference is twofold.  One, the Oriental Schismatics do not believe in the living magisterium at all, they have a vague theory by which the faith percolates down through the ages and divine providence ensures that it remains pure.  In this they are exactly like Bishop Williamson.  Both regard the magisterium as a kind of optional extra that is respected when it is right.  Both deny its infallibility.  Two, the Oriental Schismatics are also heretics in denying the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, truths that their forebears clearly and indisputably accepted.  Sedevacantists don't deny these truths, we emphasise them.

The EO position on that has varied and was probably closer to our understanding at the time of the Filioque controversy--especially since they appealed to the authority of multiple General Councils to back up their position as well as a lack of universal consensus in the Church embracing the Filioque.

But if you don't want to use them as an example, let's use a hypothetical Catholic and whether a particular response is appropriate.

I know sedevacantists vary a lot, but this is how I have understood the general premise: the apparent organ of the Magisterium, in this case a Pope or a Council, taught error, therefore said putative organ was never a valid organ of the Magisterium to begin with. "The supposed Pope taught error, therefore he was not actually the Pope."

Say in 1336 I was convinced by the arguments that the traditional position was that the souls of the departed do not experience the beatific vision until the Final Judgment.  Benedict XII then issues his constitution Benedictus Deus to the contrary. I therefore recognize him to be in error and conclude that he is not the Pope at all. Am I right in my approach, but merely erring in my understanding of what was traditional and what was not?

Sedevacantism exists within a larger context.  That context includes the countless grave errors of Vatican II and its ambiguous, unCatholic, revolutionary, ambiguity.  But there's a larger, if possible even more important factor, and that is the gigantic schism of Paul VI, who imposed, via his bishops, a horrible new Protestant-approved liturgy upon the faithful.  When some of them asked for the old mass to continue, he doubled down and imposed it more severely.  When some priests refused to abandon the Mass of their ordination, they were verbally abused, accused of pride and disobedience, suspended, prematurely retired, basically persecuted.  Fifty thousand priests lost their vocations in ten years, and hundreds of thousands of consecrated virgins abandoned their religious houses.  The faithful were devastated.  Nobody ever mentions these facts because they can't compute them within this total myth of the New Pentecost and all the other lies about "renewal" that they have swallowed.  But these facts constituted a schism, and traditional Catholics were the remnant.  Not the only Catholics left, but the remnant that knew what it was to be a real Catholic.  The rest were in various states of total disorientation and confusion, and most still are.

So, when we look at this non-auto demolition we blame the men who did it.  That's really our argument.

We can go back to the basic question now if you like - which I answer exactly as I did before.  We don't adopt the lie of religious liberty because the Church has already infallibly condemned it.  Nobody has even alleged that any Church figure, let alone the Roman Pontiff, had previously condemned the Filioque.  No, the Greeks were simply disobedient to the magisterium, which in turn they only came up with as an excuse for their schism.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
bp williamson 5 30 column - by a83192 - 05-30-2014, 09:45 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 05-31-2014, 02:15 AM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 05-31-2014, 10:54 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by onosurf - 06-03-2014, 11:49 AM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by J Michael - 06-03-2014, 12:29 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by SaintSebastian - 06-03-2014, 12:30 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 06-03-2014, 09:20 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 06-03-2014, 09:21 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 06-03-2014, 09:25 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by Clare Brigid - 06-03-2014, 09:29 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by SaintSebastian - 06-04-2014, 10:01 AM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 06-06-2014, 09:50 AM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by J Michael - 06-06-2014, 10:02 AM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by SaintSebastian - 06-06-2014, 01:11 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 06-06-2014, 07:34 PM
Re: bp williamson 5 30 column - by John Lane - 06-06-2014, 07:49 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)