Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
#42
(12-16-2009, 11:44 PM)anthony Wrote: Gerard and Baskerville


(12-16-2009, 08:24 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 02:20 PM)anthony Wrote:   There is no Newchurch,

Sure there is the Post Conciliar Church is not the same Church as that of pre 1965 in doctrine and liturgy it a whole new protestant denomination.

The post-conciliar Church is the Church of Christ. There is no other. The doctrine has not changed, and if it appears to have changed because of the personal errors of certain clergymen, then our eyes are not seeing the reality, but an illusion - a similar illusion to that experienced by the instigators of the Protestant Revolt. The Church's rites may have been tampered with, but with no affect on their validity and efficacy. We may choose to reject them. But it cannot be because they are positively wrong or evil; but merely because of how  and why they came to be, and what they might suggest with a little nudge in the wrong direction. Bishop Williamson did not voice his opinion in his way. Instead he robbed me of my trust in the promise of Christ with his dramatic speech. If he were less a sophist he might actually make friends with some we consider "neo-cons".

And no, I don't think the only John Calvins are the liberals. There are many trads who have a ****ed up view of the Church, doctrine, and who, as products of their age, have minds that are unhinged, off the rails, sick. At least +Williamson concedes the point that there is a grey area to some of what we can experience. Anyone who admits of a lighter or darker shade, and is shrill about it is no better than a certain raving German lunatic.

As for Fr. Z:  Do you know his station and work history? I do. I also am roughly aware of his schedule on most days. I don't stock the man, but do read his blog. He's not perfect, nor is he perfectly consistent. But who can be? No, really, I mean it? There is so much uncertainty. The only certainty is to cling to Holy Mother Church the best one knows how. I don't blame Bishop Williamson for being an SSPX bishop, nor do I blame Fr. Z for reading him with suspicion.

A lot of what you've written here makes sense. What I find most interesting is where you mentioned that the instigators of the Protestant revolt experienced a similar illusion to the illusion of today, in which it appears that doctrine has changed, but really hasn't, and that the problem has more to do with the personal errors of certain clergymen. I hadn't really seen it explained in that way before, so there's some good food for thought in that idea.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson - by Meg - 12-17-2009, 01:22 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)