Bishop Williamson- Rotten Apples
#21
(05-14-2011, 09:08 PM)B of Navarre Wrote:
(05-14-2011, 08:23 PM)wallflower Wrote: Honestly I have never heard the "two Churches" speak until I came to FE

Quote:Outside of Which Church?
by Jean Madiran

As a reaction to the papal allocution of 24 May 1976, Jean Madiran wrote the following article which first appeared in the Supplément-Voltigeur of Itinéraires of 15 June 1976. The following translation was made by Father Urban Synder and appeared in The Remnant of 21 July 1976.

"In his allocution to the Consistory of 24 May 1976, where he mentions Archbishop Lefebvre several times by name, Paul VI seems to cut him off and yet he doesn't. He accuses the Archbishop of 'putting himself outside the Church.' But which Church? There are two. And Paul VI has not renounced being the Pope of these two Churches sirnultaneously. Under such conditions, 'outside the Church' is equivocal and does not cut off anything.

That there are now two Churches, with one and the same Paul VI at the head of both, is not our doing, we are not making it up, but simply stating the way things are.

Many episcopates, which declare themselves to be in communion with the Pope, and whom the Pope does not reject from his communion, are objectively outside the Catholic communion.

The episcopate of Holland, in an official document, has explicitly called into doubt the virginal conception of Our Lord, but they have not been summoned by the Pope to retract or to resign. On the contrary-they have spread through-out the whole world their 'Dutch Catechism' which doesn't contain the things necessary to know for salvation, and which inspires all the new catechisms.

The French episcopate since 1969 subjects the faithful, 'as a reminder of faith', to the false teaching that in the Mass 'there is question simply of a memorial.' None of our protestations or supplications has succeeded in bringing them to deny or even explain this. It is in the name of the Council, of the Pope, and of the bishops in communion with him that now, for ten years or more, and without any efficacious denial, there is imposed on us all the discourses and, decisions which install the immanent apostasy, the permanent auto-demolition, the capitulation before the world, the cult of man, the opening to Communism. There is no question here of some handful of marginal dissidents, as the Pope insinuates in his allocution. There is question of the greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession. Legitimate holders? Yes, but prevaricators, deserters, impostors. Paul VI remains at their head without either disavowing or correcting them. He keeps them in his communion, he presides over their Church also.

Archbishop Lefebvre is not in his present situation through any fault of his own. He didn't innovate anything, he didn't invent anything, he didn't overturn anything; he has simply preserved and transmitted the deposit which he received. He has kept the promises of his baptism, the doctrine of his catechism, the Mass of his ordination, the dogmas defined by Popes and Councils, the theology and the traditional ecclesiology of the Church of Rome. Just by his existence, by his very being, and without having willed it, he is thus the witness of a crisis which is not of his making, but that of an uncertain Pope at the head of two Churches at the same time.

Cardinal Suenens declared in 1969: 'We could draw up an impressive list of theses, taught in Rome yesterday and before yesterday as sole truths (seules valables), and which were eliminated by the Council Fathers.’ A formidable doctrinal revolution! Cardinal Suenens is happy about it. The greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession think and speak on this point like Cardinal Suenens. Neither he nor they are disavowed. Paul VI remains at their head and keeps them in his communion; a communion where they profess that the Church, yesterday and before yesterday, was mistaken. But on all these points where they teach that the Church was mistaken, who or what can guarantee to us that it is not they themselves who, today, are mistaken and are misleading us?

It doesn't help at all to reassure us that the Council is badly interpreted and the Pope badly understood. If the Council has been constantly interpreted the way it has, it is with the active or passive consent of the bishops in communion with the Pope. Thus there is established a Conciliar Church, different from the Catholic Church. And no bishop, however scandalous his post-conciliar excesses, has received from Paul VI the severe public rebukes which he has reserved for Archbishop Lefebvre alone, and for the sole reason that the Archbishop remains unshakeably faithful to the Catholic religion such as it was until 1958.

If the Catholic religion, such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII, contained some things optional, variable, which (let us suppose) have become anachronistic in 1976, to remain attached to them does not, all the same, constitute a crime. Anachronism is not necessarily in itself something which puts you 'outside the Church.' If we are going to talk about anachronisms, pure, simple, and unlimited, they are in the new catechisms from which the things necessary for salvation have been excised; they are in the vernacular Masses, accompanied by Marxist chants and erotic dances; they are in the falsification of Scripture imposed by the episcopate, such as where a (French) liturgical reading proclaims that 'to live holily it is necessary to marry'; they are in all the other infamous things of like kind of which none, for the past ten years, has been either retracted by those guilty , or condemned by higher authority. There are indeed crimes really going on in the Church, those just mentioned, but they are considered less criminal than preserving the Catholic religion such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII.

All this presupposes a new religion, another ecclesial community, which nevertheless is installed in the posts of command of Church administration, and boasts of communion with Pope Paul, having at the same time, to put it mildly, the consent of Pope Paul.

Archbishop Lefebvre 'outside the Church'? Out of the one just mentioned, certainly. But it surpasses belief that a person 'puts himself outside' the Catholic Church, without budging, or by simply remaining in the Catholic religion such as it was at the death of Pius XII in 1958.

There are two Churches under Paul VI. Not to see that there are two, or not to see that they are strangers the one to the other, or not to see that Paul VI thus far is presiding over both, partakes of blindness and in some cases perhaps of invincible blindness. But when one has once seen it, not to say it would be to add complicity by silence to an enormous monstrosity.

Gustave Corcao in the review ltineraires for November, 1975, and then Father Bruckberger in L' Aurore for 18 March 1976, remarked in print: The religious crisis is not like that in the 14th century, when you had, for one single Church, two or three Popes simultaneously; today, rather, there is question of one single Pope for two Churches, the Catholic and the post-conciliar.

Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume I, by Michael Davies - Chapter 9 - The Consistory Allocution

While I am curious about why people speak of two Churches, I can't say that this article by Jean Madiran does much for me. This was written pro Marcel Lefebvre, but did the Archbishop himself speak this way?  And Jean seems to take it even further than Bishop Williamson, speaking of two Churches as a reality, while the Bishop says it is not a reality, just a useful means of distinction.
Reply
#22
(05-14-2011, 08:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-14-2011, 07:55 PM)Petertherock Wrote: St. Robert Bellarmine wasn't around when the Council destroyed the Church. None of the great Saints would attend the NO Mass...that is why we haven't had any great Saints since the conciliar Church was developed. Unless of course, you count JPII as a soon to be great Saint.  :laughing:

St. Robert Bellarmine was around for the Protestant "reformation".  I think he understood about crises in the Church.

Unfortunately for me I don't know much about Church history during this time but I do believe during the "reformation" you had the Pope strongly defending the Catholic Faith. I can't say the same thing about Rome during today's day.
Reply
#23
The Pope in 1517 with the 95 theses of Luther was rather week. Took the church a few decades to get some steam behind the counter-reformation.
Reply
#24
Me thinks that the good bishop doesn't get out much. He speaks of the rotten fruit of the "conciliar church," but when is the last time that he actually set foot in a "conciliar church?" It was probably about 1976 or so, when he was ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre. The information that he so confidently speaks of is that of a vicarious nature. It's all second-hand, from others whom he obviously trusts. I would challenge him to get out a little, and actually set foot in, and, *gasp* maybe even attend a "rotten" NO Mass, just to see for himself, rather than just take the word of others.

I've mentioned recently here that I've done a little experiment, and have attended NO/OF Masses in several U.S. states during the last year, and have been surprised that most of them have not been by any means "rotten." The last one I assisted at was yesterday. For the first time, I attended Mass at St. Peter's mission church on the Suquamish Indian reservation, near Seattle (Chief Seattle, a devout Catholic, is buried in a cemetery next to the church). The Mass was reverent, and the sermon excellent. The priest spoke of the need to stay true to the teachings of the Church, even if it means taking unpopular stands. He also said that we should show our faith in public, such as genuflecting when we have a meal in a restaurant. We sang Salve Regina at the end of Mass (in honor of Our Lady), and it was really cool that before Mass, the priest actually rang the old church bell, in the old-fashioned manner by pulling the rope, for about a full-minute.  A lovely Mass.


Reply
#25
While the message +W is delivering is pretty well right on, I really have to enjoy the irony of the messanger and the message on this one...
Reply
#26
(05-14-2011, 10:14 PM)salus Wrote: I always thought Pope Benedict should appoint Bishop Williamson as Archbishop of San Francisco just to annoy the political and cultural perverts in that city!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If he did this, I would probably enter our archdiocesan seminary and also tell +Williamson everything he needed to know. I might cry tears of joy if this happened. +Richard Williamson SSPX, Archbishop of San Francisco, my home. This would be a dream come true.
Reply
#27
(05-15-2011, 12:58 AM)Meg Wrote: Me thinks that the good bishop doesn't get out much. He speaks of the rotten fruit of the "conciliar church," but when is the last time that he actually set foot in a "conciliar church?" It was probably about 1976 or so, when he was ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre. The information that he so confidently speaks of is that of a vicarious nature. It's all second-hand, from others whom he obviously trusts. I would challenge him to get out a little, and actually set foot in, and, *gasp* maybe even attend a "rotten" NO Mass, just to see for himself, rather than just take the word of others.

I've mentioned recently here that I've done a little experiment, and have attended NO/OF Masses in several U.S. states during the last year, and have been surprised that most of them have not been by any means "rotten." The last one I assisted at was yesterday. For the first time, I attended Mass at St. Peter's mission church on the Suquamish Indian reservation, near Seattle (Chief Seattle, a devout Catholic, is buried in a cemetery next to the church). The Mass was reverent, and the sermon excellent. The priest spoke of the need to stay true to the teachings of the Church, even if it means taking unpopular stands. He also said that we should show our faith in public, such as genuflecting when we have a meal in a restaurant. We sang Salve Regina at the end of Mass (in honor of Our Lady), and it was really cool that before Mass, the priest actually rang the old church bell, in the old-fashioned manner by pulling the rope, for about a full-minute.  A lovely Mass.

Well I went to a lovely old church hijacked by the Novus Ordo the other day to see a friend who was attending mass.  There was a table with a big picture of JP II on it where an altar should be.  Behind that a large painting of the Divine Mercy.  Grey shrouds mysteriously covered an beautiful old altar dedicated to Our Lady on the side.  The worst part of all was the noise.  There was never a moment of prayerful silence.  Jackasses on a guitars were playing abominable hymns whenever the priest was not speaking, and people prayed out loud with their arms spread wide.  This is considered a conservative Novus Ordo parish, but the whole thing is just a cult for JP II. 

Also, genuflecting for a meal at a restaurant is bloody weird.
Reply
#28
Yeah I've never heard about genuflecting for a meal either.

Last Fall I was trying to cling to good NO experiences but as a whole the NO is a vehicle for constant problems, which is the problem. It's by no means an ironclad mass guaranteed to demonstrate the faith clearly.
Reply
#29
Am I the only one that sees this post as him backing away from the whole two Churches concept (at least in this particular blog post?). It seems he's saying it's just a figure of speech, and that's not what he literally means. It seems he's taking his own "hermeneutic of continuity" approach to his past blog posts which spoke of the Pope being head of two Churches.

SSPX apologias often compare them, or at least their founder, to St. Athanasius, but as far as I know he never said Liberius was the head of two Churches. The only person I know who somewhat taught this was St. Hippolytus of Sts. Zephyrinius and Callistus regarding their approach towards the orthodox and Noetians and Sabellians--but this was about the time he went into schism and had himself elected as an antipope. He later repented and was reconciled. Anyway, point being, I think it's good that Bishop Williamson is clarifying here what he really means.

Also, as an aside, St. Robert has acquired a preeminent authoritativeness in regards to ecclesiology. His ecclesiology has been used much in the same way that St. Augustine's doctrine on grace has been appropriated by the Church. For example, Mystici Corporis is pretty much straight-up Bellarminian as was the schema on the Church from the First Vatican Council (which sadly was never promulgated).



Reply
#30
(05-15-2011, 07:45 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Am I the only one that sees this post as him backing away from the whole two Churches concept (at least in this particular blog post?). It seems he's saying it's just a figure of speech, and that's not what he literally means. It seems he's taking his own "hermeneutic of continuity" approach to his past blog posts which spoke of the Pope being head of two Churches.

Wow, that really makes sense. I am not familiar enough with his past writings to have seen this myself.  If he is moving from claiming that there are literally two Churches to saying that it is a figure of speech, that is indeed significant and a cause for hope.  Thanks for this insight.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)