Dec 3 Bp WIlliamson column
#11
I think +W is right in saying that liberals do not believe in the Truth. Whatever you believe the Truth is, even if you were to hold that the Truth were an ant, you would be held at that moment to a fixed view; you become subject, under the authority of that ant. It is this subjection that Liberals cannot allow. For them, all that remains is the opinion of the moment, whatever is expedient for them at the time, in short, "My Will". To hold strongly to an opinion is still not to hold it as the Truth, as long as you leave yourself free to change that opinion whenever you want. That is Liberalism.

I really liked his paragraph on the 'contradictions."

Two people, I forget who, above, expressed disagreement with each other about Bishop Williamson's statement that the leaders come from Our Lord (vs from Our Lord through the Church). That disagreement is, I think, the BEST and most concise expression I have ever seen of the whole Trad issue. It really boils down to the question of whether or not there can be a Catholic Church without Jesus, a Jesus without a Catholic Church, popes in error, a Catholic Church practically yet not totally invisible, or two Catholic Churches, one that holds to Tradition and another that holds to a living pope or a living Magisterium. I myself am confused on these issues, I freely admit. If I knew how to do polls, I would turn these questions into a poll and take it from there, because here is a question: is it possible to have a Catholic Church with a reigning pope in error in a serious issue? That is for me the biggest question. If the answer is no, then we may have had one invalid pope, or a smaller Church than we thought we had.
Reply
#12
(12-03-2011, 04:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Has Msgr. Williamson been demoted. I notice he no longer calls himself Bishop Williamson but Msgr. Williamson. Anyone know why?
"In some countries, Monsignor (or its foreign language equivalent) is the usual style of address for all higher prelates of the Roman Church below the rank of cardinal or patriarch, including bishops and archbishops. In other countries, particularly English-speaking ones, it is not used for bishops, but only for priests who have received certain specific honorary awards or who hold certain offices."

Once a bishop always a bishop.
His Grace Williamson cannot be "demoted", he can be laicized, but HE will always have the fullness of the priesthood as bishop.

Apparantly HE is using the French or continental style to address himself.
Reply
#13
(12-03-2011, 05:03 PM)maldon Wrote: I think +W is right in saying that liberals do not believe in the Truth. Whatever you believe the Truth is, even if you were to hold that the Truth were an ant, you would be held at that moment to a fixed view; you become subject, under the authority of that ant. It is this subjection that Liberals cannot allow. For them, all that remains is the opinion of the moment, whatever is expedient for them at the time, in short, "My Will". To hold strongly to an opinion is still not to hold it as the Truth, as long as you leave yourself free to change that opinion whenever you want. That is Liberalism.

I really liked his paragraph on the 'contradictions."

Two people, I forget who, above, expressed disagreement with each other about Bishop Williamson's statement that the leaders come from Our Lord (vs from Our Lord through the Church). That disagreement is, I think, the BEST and most concise expression I have ever seen of the whole Trad issue. It really boils down to the question of whether or not there can be a Catholic Church without Jesus, a Jesus without a Catholic Church, popes in error, a Catholic Church practically yet not totally invisible, or two Catholic Churches, one that holds to Tradition and another that holds to a living pope or a living Magisterium. I myself am confused on these issues, I freely admit. If I knew how to do polls, I would turn these questions into a poll and take it from there, because here is a question: is it possible to have a Catholic Church with a reigning pope in error in a serious issue? That is for me the biggest question. If the answer is no, then we may have had one invalid pope, or a smaller Church than we thought we had.
The confusion usually has to to do with the extent of infallibility.
Reply
#14
Thank you, JMartyr,

We know that popes can be in error. We also know that the Church is always visible. We also know that we owe our superiors, e.g. popes submission unless they demand obedience in something that would constitute sin. This is a huge problem for me, because VII, though simply dumb, is not in its entirety heresy. And the NO is, in itself, valid. So what does one do? Accept the aspects of VII that are not in contradiction with Tradition as aspects to which oen submits willingly, while demanding that the other parts be considered at least debatable? And similarly, insist that one has the right to celebrate the TLM exclusively (or attend it), while admitting that, properly celebrated the NO can be valid? I suspect that this is the kind of minefield the SSPX is treading in its journey of canonical regularization. And I can imagine that this si the kind of thing that makes the Preamble go back and forth. But I still wonder, always have wondered, how Paul VI let this happen. Blessed John XXIII could always say that he thought it was a good idea to start the Council, but he was not there to end it; but Paul VI worries me, as do the rumours surrounding his election. Was he, perhaps, the weakest pope in world history?
Reply
#15
(12-03-2011, 10:40 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote;

"Sacred heart of Jesus, grant to deserve the good leaders who can come only from you."

H.E. has it only partly right. Rather, what H.E. should say is that good leaders can only come from Jesus through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

H.E. writes as if he were still an Anglican.

??? :eyeroll:

(12-03-2011, 12:38 PM)Gerard Wrote: 1) You're wrong.

2)  That is an amazing stretch to make in order to dump on the bishop. 

This.
Reply
#16
(12-03-2011, 04:28 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(12-03-2011, 04:01 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I don't really see how one can claim that liberals don't believe in truth. A central belief of liberalism is faith in the ability of abstract reason to solve all of our problems. I think a lot of people get liberalism confused with deconstructionism and other, related postmodern ideologies.

Solving all our problems is where the problem with Truth would lie. No pun intended. We are not promised heaven on earth, and we can clearly see how utopian visions lead to dystopian realities. At best, liberals view truth as relative to the current problem. But perhaps you can expand on your idea.

Well, I think liberals usually believe that there are truths out there that can be discovered through the use of reason. For example, most liberals believe that people have "human rights," and that these human rights are universal. More generally, liberals are proposing a story that they claim is true, whereas other stories--Christianity, Islam, Communism, and so forth--are false. So, in that sense liberals do believe that there are universal truths. I think the confusion comes in because, in the wake of Nietzsche and later thinkers, many Western intellectuals have abandoned liberalism in favor of more radical ideologies, but these intellectuals are still often called "liberals" by conservatives.

Although, liberalism is often functionally relativist in the sense that it argues that we should bracket questions of religious and metaphysical truth when deciding on the best mode of political organization. This means that a liberal will often argue that he believes in the truth of Christianity, but that he thinks that this issue should be left up to individuals. However, the liberal claim to formal neutrality is pretty obviously false. Despite the fact that liberalism claims to be value-neutral, it really sets up its own truths and criteria that it demands others accept. Most obviously, liberals push everything other than reason out of the public sphere, so particular loyalties and faith can no longer serve as valid reasons for doing anything. This eventually gets to the point where not only are religious belief and particular loyalties driven out of the public sphere, but even private expressions of these sentiments are looked down upon. Just look at the increasing discrimination against Christians who hold orthodox beliefs regarding homosexuality. So, even though liberalism claims neutrality, it really is still trying to set its narrative up as the only true one.

Also, keep in mind that liberalism ultimately has its roots in John Locke and the encyclopaedists. Liberalism has changed quite a bit sense then, but I think it still holds to their faith in the human mind to independently discover truths and make sense of nature. Of course, we can see where this optimism has led us.
Reply
#17
(12-03-2011, 05:08 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-03-2011, 04:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Has Msgr. Williamson been demoted. I notice he no longer calls himself Bishop Williamson but Msgr. Williamson. Anyone know why?
"In some countries, Monsignor (or its foreign language equivalent) is the usual style of address for all higher prelates of the Roman Church below the rank of cardinal or patriarch, including bishops and archbishops. In other countries, particularly English-speaking ones, it is not used for bishops, but only for priests who have received certain specific honorary awards or who hold certain offices."

Once a bishop always a bishop.
His Grace Williamson cannot be "demoted", he can be laicized, but HE will always have the fullness of the priesthood as bishop.

Apparantly HE is using the French or continental style to address himself.

Thank you for this info!
Reply
#18
Crusading Philologist, I disagree. I think that what you are describing as "liberals" is classical or early 20th century liberalism. 21st century liberals hold to nothing as a truth. They accept Popper's view of science, which leads to total relativism.
Night!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)