Jan 21 Bp Williamson column
#11
(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: He wrote that if the SSPX does not soon "normalize" its standing with Rome, then it runs the risk of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church. For there are layfolk and even SSPX priests who are comfortable with their present abnormal situation and have adapted to it, because the SSPX "has all that it needs, notably bishops". Such adaptation, wrote my colleague, tends towards a schismatic mentality and a practical, if not theoretical, sedevacantism.
Please note that Bishop Williamson does not even try to address or refute this very important point. He can't.
Reply
#12
(01-22-2012, 09:36 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote:
(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: He wrote that if the SSPX does not soon "normalize" its standing with Rome, then it runs the risk of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church. For there are layfolk and even SSPX priests who are comfortable with their present abnormal situation and have adapted to it, because the SSPX "has all that it needs, notably bishops". Such adaptation, wrote my colleague, tends towards a schismatic mentality and a practical, if not theoretical, sedevacantism.
Please note that Bishop Williamson does not even try to address or refute this very important point. He can't.

Wow, that really is clutching at straws  Eye-roll
Reply
#13
Quote: He wrote that if the SSPX does not soon "normalize" its standing with Rome, then it runs the risk of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church. For there are layfolk and even SSPX priests who are comfortable with their present abnormal situation and have adapted to it, because the SSPX "has all that it needs, notably bishops". Such adaptation, wrote my colleague, tends towards a schismatic mentality and a practical, if not theoretical, sedevacantism. 


This type of argument is entirely unconvincing. It is not as if the SSPX is the only group that operates virtually independently from Rome, approved organisations do so, the only difference is that whilst the latter are infected with modernism the former are not. A good example of this is Opus Dei, they are completely independent from the local bishops, their members are solely under the care of Opus dei, they have their own bishops, attend their own services, retreats, masses, a good number even live together in Opus Dei residences, why has no one accused them of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church? A more recent example is the Neo Catechemunal way, they are even worse than Opus Dei in that whilst answerable to the local bishops, their liturgy is novus-novus Ordo and frankly not only sacrilegious but outright heretical, they really only attend these 'liturgies' and have been criticised by bishops worldwide for causing divisiveness, they are however approved by Rome. I suppose the person who made this comment is going to say that all these groups have a schismatic tendency too? Oh, he's not  Shocked I thought so  >sad

Frankly the idea of a 'schismatic tendency' is more Vatican 2 nonsense doublespeak, a little like 'excommunicated in conscience', these people are I am afraid as the friend of Bp Williamson remarked and as he did himself, 'mentally sick', their views are illogical and contrary to both church teaching and law. They are sadly entirely brainwashed by the Vatican 2 Church.

The SSPX is under no obligation to obey the commands that come out of Rome when they are infected with modernism and thus harmful to souls or contrary to the faith, when the commands are good they are obliged to follow them, as they have done. This kind of sycophancy regarding the Pope is unhealthy and uncatholic, worse it leads to the loss of innumerable numbers of souls.
Reply
#14
(01-22-2012, 11:11 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
Quote: He wrote that if the SSPX does not soon "normalize" its standing with Rome, then it runs the risk of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church. For there are layfolk and even SSPX priests who are comfortable with their present abnormal situation and have adapted to it, because the SSPX "has all that it needs, notably bishops". Such adaptation, wrote my colleague, tends towards a schismatic mentality and a practical, if not theoretical, sedevacantism. 


This type of argument is entirely unconvincing. It is not as if the SSPX is the only group that operates virtually independently from Rome, approved organisations do so, the only difference is that whilst the latter are infected with modernism the former are not. A good example of this is Opus Dei, they are completely independent from the local bishops, their members are solely under the care of Opus dei, they have their own bishops, attend their own services, retreats, masses, a good number even live together in Opus Dei residences, why has no one accused them of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church? A more recent example is the Neo Catechemunal way, they are even worse than Opus Dei in that whilst answerable to the local bishops, their liturgy is novus-novus Ordo and frankly not only sacrilegious but outright heretical, they really only attend these 'liturgies' and have been criticised by bishops worldwide for causing divisiveness, they are however approved by Rome. I suppose the person who made this comment is going to say that all these groups have a schismatic tendency too? Oh, he's not  Shocked I thought so  >sad

Frankly the idea of a 'schismatic tendency' is more Vatican 2 nonsense doublespeak, a little like 'excommunicated in conscience', these people are I am afraid as the friend of Bp Williamson remarked and as he did himself, 'mentally sick', their views are illogical and contrary to both church teaching and law. They are sadly entirely brainwashed by the Vatican 2 Church.

The SSPX is under no obligation to obey the commands that come out of Rome when they are infected with modernism and thus harmful to souls or contrary to the faith, when the commands are good they are obliged to follow them, as they have done. This kind of sycophancy regarding the Pope is unhealthy and uncatholic, worse it leads to the loss of innumerable numbers of souls.
You make a lot of good points. It seems there are two measuring sticks when Rome deals with traditionalists as compared to very questionable groups such as NCW.
Reply
#15
Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?
Reply
#16
(01-22-2012, 11:35 AM)JMartyr Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:11 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
Quote: He wrote that if the SSPX does not soon "normalize" its standing with Rome, then it runs the risk of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church. For there are layfolk and even SSPX priests who are comfortable with their present abnormal situation and have adapted to it, because the SSPX "has all that it needs, notably bishops". Such adaptation, wrote my colleague, tends towards a schismatic mentality and a practical, if not theoretical, sedevacantism. 


This type of argument is entirely unconvincing. It is not as if the SSPX is the only group that operates virtually independently from Rome, approved organisations do so, the only difference is that whilst the latter are infected with modernism the former are not. A good example of this is Opus Dei, they are completely independent from the local bishops, their members are solely under the care of Opus dei, they have their own bishops, attend their own services, retreats, masses, a good number even live together in Opus Dei residences, why has no one accused them of losing the sense of what it means to belong to the Church? A more recent example is the Neo Catechemunal way, they are even worse than Opus Dei in that whilst answerable to the local bishops, their liturgy is novus-novus Ordo and frankly not only sacrilegious but outright heretical, they really only attend these 'liturgies' and have been criticised by bishops worldwide for causing divisiveness, they are however approved by Rome. I suppose the person who made this comment is going to say that all these groups have a schismatic tendency too? Oh, he's not  Shocked I thought so  >sad

Frankly the idea of a 'schismatic tendency' is more Vatican 2 nonsense doublespeak, a little like 'excommunicated in conscience', these people are I am afraid as the friend of Bp Williamson remarked and as he did himself, 'mentally sick', their views are illogical and contrary to both church teaching and law. They are sadly entirely brainwashed by the Vatican 2 Church.

The SSPX is under no obligation to obey the commands that come out of Rome when they are infected with modernism and thus harmful to souls or contrary to the faith, when the commands are good they are obliged to follow them, as they have done. This kind of sycophancy regarding the Pope is unhealthy and uncatholic, worse it leads to the loss of innumerable numbers of souls.
You make a lot of good points. It seems there are two measuring sticks when Rome deals with traditionalists as compared to very questionable groups such as NCW.

Just trying to do my bit  Smile

Believe me I used to think that the SSPX were crazy, then I realised they were right but still thought they should reconcile with Rome and that if the offer from Rome was generou enough and they rejected it they would be in schism, but the more I found about them the more I realised they were right and with the nonsense that comes out from Rome these days, who would want to be part of that?  Blush Crazy!
Reply
#17
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.
Reply
#18
(01-22-2012, 11:59 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.

I'm referring to the SSPX here, not the modernists to whom Bp. Williamson is referring. So you think that the SSPX needn't reconcile, because they have the truth, and that's what's most  important?
Authority only being a secondary concern?
Reply
#19
(01-22-2012, 12:03 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:59 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.

I'm referring to the SSPX here, not the modernists to whom Bp. Williamson is referring. So you think that the SSPX needn't reconcile, because they have the truth, and that's what's most  important?
Authority only being a secondary concern?

Ah I see what you mean, the salvation of souls is the primarcy concern of the Church, it is in fact the very reason for which it was founded and it is the 'Supreme law' of the Church. Truth, when it comes to doctrine, is a pre-requisite to saving souls, therefore Truth in this case (as it is concerned with doctrine) has a primacy over authority, though the SSPX do not deny that the Pope and the SSPX are the legitmate authority of the Church they cannot compel the Society to forsake the Catholic faith. Furthermore the Society is under an obligation to ensure it does not become contaminated by the errors of many of the worlds bishops and even Rome itself, therefore if it believes that reconciling with Rome would compromise its mission it should not normalise its relations with Rome.
Reply
#20
(01-22-2012, 12:03 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:59 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 11:55 AM)Meg Wrote: Quote from Bp. Williamson:

"Such minds are running not on truth but on authority."
-----------------

So if truth can be positively separated from authority, then there's no reason for the SSPX to ever reconcile, isn't that correct?

I believe you're rather missing the point, they can't ergo the SSPX won't reconcile.

I'm referring to the SSPX here, not the modernists to whom Bp. Williamson is referring. So you think that the SSPX needn't reconcile, because they have the truth, and that's what's most  important?
Authority only being a secondary concern?


Before SSPX reconciles with Rome, it's most important that Rome first admit that there is a crisis that Rome is responsible for. That first step on Rome's part is a must. Until then, the sick minds in Rome will continue "running not on truth but on authority."

Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office. - Pascendi

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)