Bishop Williamson- Rotten Apples
#71
(05-16-2011, 09:18 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 08:54 AM)JayneK Wrote: It is obvious that there is a serious problem in the Church and I certainly do not deny that.  To me, it is just as obvious that we should not use language to describe that problem that was rejected by St. Robert Bellarmine, is associated with heresy and is in conflict with the Creed.  There is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  From where I sit, you are the one who is denying the obvious. 

Perhaps we can do this in a more methodical manner. I really want to get you to admit or at least answer directly the following:

The ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been infiltrated in Her hierarchy with "the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church" - Modernists.

To me and to many, this is obvious - do you agree or disagree that Church has been infiltrated in Her hierarchy with Modernists?

I agree both that it is true and that it is obvious.  I wonder why you would think that I questioned that.
Reply
#72
(05-16-2011, 09:22 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:18 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 08:54 AM)JayneK Wrote: It is obvious that there is a serious problem in the Church and I certainly do not deny that.  To me, it is just as obvious that we should not use language to describe that problem that was rejected by St. Robert Bellarmine, is associated with heresy and is in conflict with the Creed.  There is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  From where I sit, you are the one who is denying the obvious. 

Perhaps we can do this in a more methodical manner. I really want to get you to admit or at least answer directly the following:

The ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been infiltrated in Her hierarchy with "the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church" - Modernists.

To me and to many, this is obvious - do you agree or disagree that Church has been infiltrated in Her hierarchy with Modernists?

I agree both that it is true and that it is obvious.  I wonder why you would think that I questioned that.

Ok, we agree - onto to the next question for you:

Since the goal of Modernists is to destroy Holy Mother the Church, Modernists have reigned within the hierarchy for at least the last 45 years or so, do you agree or disagree?   
Reply
#73
(05-16-2011, 09:33 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:22 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:18 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 08:54 AM)JayneK Wrote: It is obvious that there is a serious problem in the Church and I certainly do not deny that.  To me, it is just as obvious that we should not use language to describe that problem that was rejected by St. Robert Bellarmine, is associated with heresy and is in conflict with the Creed.  There is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  From where I sit, you are the one who is denying the obvious. 

Perhaps we can do this in a more methodical manner. I really want to get you to admit or at least answer directly the following:

The ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been infiltrated in Her hierarchy with "the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church" - Modernists.

To me and to many, this is obvious - do you agree or disagree that Church has been infiltrated in Her hierarchy with Modernists?

I agree both that it is true and that it is obvious.  I wonder why you would think that I questioned that.

Ok, we agree - onto to the next question for you:

Since the goal of Modernists is to destroy Holy Mother the Church, Modernists have reigned within the hierarchy for at least the last 45 years or so, do you agree or disagree?   

Disagree.  Modernists do not have the goal of destroying the Church.  They mean to help but are destructive because they are wrong and foolish.  Nor would I say that modernists "have reigned" the Church as a whole.  They have been influential.  There are areas where they have been in control.  But I disagree with stating the problem in the terms you use above.
Reply
#74
(05-15-2011, 02:08 PM)B of Navarre Wrote:
(05-14-2011, 10:14 PM)wallflower Wrote: 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?

Here are some quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre:

“For the problem of Écône is the problem of thousands and millions of Christian consciences, distressed, divided and torn for the past ten years by the agonizing dilemma:  whether to obey and risk losing one’s faith, or disobey and keep one’s faith intact; whether to obey and join the destruction of the Church, whether to accept the reformed Liberal Church, or to go on belonging to the Catholic Church

“It is because Écône is at the heart of this crucial problem, seldom til now posed with such fullness or gravity, that so many people are looking to this house which has resolutely made its choice of belonging to the eternal Church and of refusing to belong to the reformed Liberal Church.”

3 September 1975 Letter to Friends and Benefactors (No.9)
p. 144 - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Part One, by Michael Davies.
__________________________

“…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience!  To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…”

1980 Ordination Sermon, 27 June 1980
p. 210 - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume Three, by Michael Davies
____________________________

“Well then, we understand.  We now know with whom we have to deal.  We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church!  And this is why we heave the right and the duty to refuse this obedience.  …I believe that I have th right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals…..it seems to me that I wouuld have th reight to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?”  “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person?  Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?”

1978 Ordination Sermon
p. 209 - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume Two, by Michael Davies
________________________________

“It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church.  But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” 
p. xiii I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre


Also, although in this famous one he does not refer to 2 "churches," he does refer to 2 Romes.

Quote:Declaration of November 21, 1974:

    “We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”
    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

I could add more quotes if I had time, but hopefully you get the idea.

Thank you, that gives me food for thought. What I don't like about the terminology is that is seems to assume or state that all people involved with the NO are formal heretics, and I disagree with that. And yet, the other Church is spelled with a capital "C" to indicate being a part of the True Church. It seems so confusing as to what is meant exactly. I am curious about how the Archbishop would have explained his use of two Churches, if it would have been along the lines of the Bishop's letter or not. I wonder why this terminology never trickled down into the SSPX a little more? Unless I haven't been paying as much attention as I thought I was, that's a possibility. I am more drawn to other topics.
Reply
#75
(05-16-2011, 10:09 AM)wallflower Wrote: Thank you, that gives me food for thought. What I don't like about the terminology is that is seems to assume or state that all people involved with the NO are formal heretics, and I disagree with that. And yet, the other Church is spelled with a capital "C" to indicate being a part of the True Church. It seems so confusing as to what is meant exactly. I am curious about how the Archbishop would have explained his use of two Churches, if it would have been along the lines of the Bishop's letter or not. I wonder why this terminology never trickled down into the SSPX a little more? Unless I haven't been paying as much attention as I thought I was, that's a possibility. I am more drawn to other topics.

No time to type much now, but just a few quick thoughts:

Quote:What I don't like about the terminology is that is seems to assume or state that all people involved with the NO are formal heretics, and I disagree with that.

From all I've read of +AL & +BW (which is a lot), I don't think they think that or mean to imply it.  In fact, I'm sure if I dig around I could find quotes by them that show they don't.  Come to think of it, didn't one of +BW's recent "True Pope?" EC's say exactly the opposite about the Pope - that, while he may be a material heretic, he is not necessarily a formal heretic?  Anyway, I'm sure that neither +AL nor +BW thought/think that "all people involved with the NO are formal heretics." 

Quote: It seems so confusing as to what is meant exactly.

Yes, well it's partly confusing because it is!  (If you know what I mean.)  This is not an easy crisis in the Church to characterize.   Diabolical Disorientation about sums it up. 

Quote:I am curious about how the Archbishop would have explained his use of two Churches, if it would have been along the lines of the Bishop's letter or not. I wonder why this terminology never trickled down into the SSPX a little more? Unless I haven't been paying as much attention as I thought I was, that's a possibility. I am more drawn to other topics.

Last time I posted the above quotes by +AL, I think Nic? posted some info. from an SSPX website that explained how they look at it.  I don't have time to look for it at the moment, but if no one else does, I'll try to find it later.

Reply
#76
(05-15-2011, 08:42 PM)JMartyr Wrote: A new mass, new catechism, new code of canon law, new formation of priests, new rules for religious, new relationships with the enemies of the Church, etc.,etc., etc.  How much more of the Church can change before it becomes something else? All of this is very frightening and confusing to say the least.  I know the gates of hell will never prevail, but maybe like our Lord's passion, it will seem all is lost.

It seems to me, at least generally, these kinds of things are pretty par for the course after an ecumenical Council. While the very existence of a code of canon law is a 20th century novelty, most ecumenical Councils have prmulgated canons which superceded many canons currently in use or which had fallen into desuetude over tine. The Council of Trent, the various Lateran Councils, and the like all did this. The same has happened with religious rules and even new catechisms. For example, after Trent there was a new catechism and the creation of another new catechism was on the agenda at Vatican I (but it was cut short before they got to it). While the introduction of another distinct Missal is unique to a post-concilliar period, the post-Tridentine era did produce a new Vulgate Bible, which was horrendous and later scrapped as well as a revised calendar (also essentially scrapped later). 

In regards to the new relationship with the Church's enemies, when there is a belief of a good chance of reunion of separated Christians, the tone does often change. This was the case before the reunions at the Council of Constance and Florence, and even during the pre-Tridentine period when there was widespread belief that the rift would be healed. The problem today--besides those who have committed certain exaggerations and abuses in the name of seeking unity--the reasons for optimism in regard to mass corporate reunion do not seem present anymore in most cases.

In regards to non-Christians, seeking mutual practical relationships in a spirit of good will are not new either. St. Gregory VII did this where he could with Muslim leaders, and only had recourse to war when that failed. Granted, what  is done today is definitely done to a greater extent (and again there are definitely exaggerations and abuses), but war and blood-shed had not happened to the extent they did in the 20th century. If you check out a lot of the war-time and post-war writings and allocutions of Pius XII, you'll see a lot more reaching out to anyone of good will who believed in Christ or even just in God. When they were being persecuted side by side and fighting side by side with others, those others tend to become less like enemies and more like friends. These events made an impact on people, especially Europeans. One of the reasons I think Archbishop Lefebrve was not affected in the same way is he was in Africa for practically this entire period—if I remember correctly he even says as much in his Open Letter.

In regards to how much can change and the Church still remain the Church, while this could never happen, I think the envelope was pushed pretty much as far as it could go without crossing the line in the post-Vatican II period. Most of the things which were changeable were. While these things had been changed before at one point or another in history, the fact that this happened so rapidly during a time of general confusion really shook the faith of a lot of folks.

Honestly, I think if the new Missal had not been promulgated (and the other “customs” introduced that went along with it—wreckovated churches, bad music, bad vestments, etc,), very few people would have this impression despite all the other stuff--it wouldn't seem as confusing. They might still have had a problem with the actions of certain churchmen, but those things would not have been deal-breakers in regards to giving up on their local parish or the greater institutional Church in general.
Reply
#77
(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:33 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Ok, we agree - onto to the next question for you:

Since the goal of Modernists is to destroy Holy Mother the Church, Modernists have reigned within the hierarchy for at least the last 45 years or so, do you agree or disagree?   

Disagree.  Modernists do not have the goal of destroying the Church.

Then herein lies your problem.  As dictated by Pope St. Pius X, the goal of Modernists is to destroy Holy Mother the Church........Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.

What I posted above is the way the Church is sought to be destroyed by modernism - per Pope St. Pius X.


(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: They mean to help but are destructive because they are wrong and foolish.

They are not foolish - they are brilliant! Only those duped into modernism believe that modernists are only "wrong" or "foolish".
Make no mistake here, the devil could care less how he triumphs, by hook or by crook makes no difference to him.

(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: Nor would I say that modernists "have reigned" the Church as a whole.  They have been influential.
 

Ok, let's get to what I assume is the crux of your denial of modernism within the hierarchy. You believe modernists have been influential - as though the Church was ruled via a democracy or popular vote - where does your thinking on this originate?

Keep in mind that Pope St. Pius X condemned everything about modernism - he dictated that even a hint of the disease would be a contagious plague...........in today's language, we would call that a "zero tolerance policy" precisely because it was so deadly to the faith. So any influence whatsoever, MUST originate or be otherwise supported from the hierarchy - there is absolutely no way to deny that reality - agree?


(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: There are areas where they have been in control.  But I disagree with stating the problem in the terms you use above.

Any area where they have been in control spreads to all areas. That is the nature of modernism - it spreads indifferentism. That is why It is the most pernicious heresy in the history of the Church.


Reply
#78
(05-16-2011, 10:52 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:33 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Ok, we agree - onto to the next question for you:

Since the goal of Modernists is to destroy Holy Mother the Church, Modernists have reigned within the hierarchy for at least the last 45 years or so, do you agree or disagree?   

Disagree.  Modernists do not have the goal of destroying the Church.

Then herein lies your problem.  As dictated by Pope St. Pius X, the goal of Modernists is to destroy Holy Mother the Church........Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.

What I posted above is the way the Church is sought to be destroyed by modernism - per Pope St. Pius X.

I don't see him saying that it is the goal of Modernists to destroy the Church.  He says that modernism is an error that if accepted will destroy the Church.  I agree.  I have spent a lot of time among liberals and Modernists.  In my experience, they are well-intentioned.  This does not take away from the wrongness of their beliefs or the importance of opposing them.

(05-16-2011, 10:52 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: They mean to help but are destructive because they are wrong and foolish.

They are not foolish - they are brilliant! Only those duped into modernism believe that modernists are only "wrong" or "foolish".
Make no mistake here, the devil could care less how he triumphs, by hook or by crook makes no difference to him.

Those duped into modernism think that modernism is right.  Why would people who believe it think it is wrong and foolish? Huh?

(05-16-2011, 10:52 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: Nor would I say that modernists "have reigned" the Church as a whole.  They have been influential.
 

Ok, let's get to what I assume is the crux of your denial of modernism within the hierarchy. You believe modernists have been influential - as though the Church was ruled via a democracy or popular vote - where does your thinking on this originate?

Keep in mind that Pope St. Pius X condemned everything about modernism - he dictated that even a hint of the disease would be a contagious plague...........in today's language, we would call that a "zero tolerance policy" precisely because it was so deadly to the faith. So any influence whatsoever, MUST originate or be otherwise supported from the hierarchy - there is absolutely no way to deny that reality - agree?

(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: There are areas where they have been in control.  But I disagree with stating the problem in the terms you use above.

Any area where they have been in control spreads to all areas. That is the nature of modernism - it spreads indifferentism. That is why It is the most pernicious heresy in the history of the Church.

I am not denying that there is modernism within the hierarchy nor that this is a grave problem.  I just don't think that "reign" is the right word to use.  As far as I can tell, our positions are not all that different and the disagreement is primarily in what words best describe the problem.  If you were not so quick to dismiss me as a modernist for using different words, I think you would see that we have significant amounts of agreement.
Reply
#79
(05-16-2011, 11:10 AM)JayneK Wrote: I don't see him saying that it is the goal of Modernists to destroy the Church.  He says that modernism is an error that if accepted will destroy the Church.  I agree.  I have spent a lot of time among liberals and Modernists.  In my experience, they are well-intentioned.  This does not take away from the wrongness of their beliefs or the importance of opposing them.


I will attempt this again................. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within;

Here we have Pope St. Pius X explaining the very thing you are disputing, if not outright denying.

1) Modernists are the enemies of the Church - by their very nature, an enemy seeks to destroy it's adversary - in this case, the adversary of the modernist is the Church. This particular enemy shows no mercy except the advancement of it's goal. Agree or disagree?

For further education - enemies (modernists) seek to "put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within". Modernism will not work any other way - it MUST be authorized from within. Think "Trojan Horse". The enemy, as you have already admitted, is within the hierarchy, as you said: I am not denying that there is modernism within the hierarchy.

(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: I am not denying that there is modernism within the hierarchy nor that this is a grave problem.  I just don't think that "reign" is the right word to use.  As far as I can tell, our positions are not all that different and the disagreement is primarily in what words best describe the problem.  If you were not so quick to dismiss me as a modernist for using different words, I think you would see that we have significant amounts of agreement.

Not so. You choose to believe - if I may be so bold as to place words into your mouth - that this is a "kinder, gentler form of modernism" - as if there were such a thing.

That definition above is akin to saying that there are some devils who don't care if they secure your soul - or that Our Blessed Mother does not really care about your soul............IOW - there is no such thing.

The very fact that the NO has *not* been abrogated proves that Modernism reigns within the hierarchy of Holy Mother the Church - can you understand that?
Reply
#80
(05-16-2011, 12:21 AM)PeterII Wrote:
(05-15-2011, 11:14 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote: No one is the head of two Churches.  You are either Catholic or you are not - that's the essence of being Catholic.  You're either in or you're out - there's no half way.

If the Pope is a material heretic, he could be the head of the Catholic Church while propagating a heretical version at the same time. 

I find it extremely unlikely that a man who attends and graduates from university*, becomes a peritus at Vatican II, and who is elected bishop, cardinal or Prefect of the CDF and then Supreme Pontiff doesn't know the teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, and so is able to err in good faith (i.e. material heresy).  How is that possible?!  In other words, how can there be a grey area with regard to heresy when the men under discussion are so highly educated?


* Pope John Paul II earned two doctorates in sacred theology, while Pope Benedict XVI earned one.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)