Jan 21 Bp Williamson column
#31

It's very convenient to say " well, we're outside of the authority of the Church, so we're immune from needing to conform to the errors".  I think the real danger is that the longer this situation exists - now a full generation - you will have Catholics who grow up in the SSPX Church who know nothing but that, and are so alienated from other Catholics that they cling to SSPX-only Masses.  This is the attitude of schism that must be avoided.  The longer it goes on the higher the chance of a split between some of the SSPX clergy and lay Catholics from the Church.  I really hope this does not happen.

You may not agree or like the changes in the Church in the last 40 years, but lay NO Catholics ARE Catholic.  It's as simple as that.  It is NOT a new religion.  To say so is to call the Pope a leader of a new religion.  There is only one Pope, and he sits in Rome, and leads the Church that the SSPX refuses to submit authority to.  It's a very fine line that could quickly take a perilous path.  I dread the day half of the SSPX becomes sedevacantist.

I can't comment on your use of the word "crisis".  You'd have to define it.  I would call the fact that some (not all) SSPX Catholics shun or mock or look down upon NO Catholics, or any non-traditional Catholics, including genuine truth seeking Catholics on CAF which happens frequently here, a crisis.  This non-charitable prideful attitude only increases the divide.  I can't blame some lay Catholics - they are just repeating the attitude given to them from the pulpit.

I know I don't have the solution, but I suspect that neither your nor Bishop Williamson does either.  But if we both act in charity and pray the Rosary maybe the solution will present itself.  It is certainly not as simple as saying "Rome we think you are wrong so we are going to choose to ignore your authority until we think you are right".  That's not the way it works.
Reply
#32
(01-23-2012, 01:41 AM)calicatholic Wrote: It's very convenient to say " well, we're outside of the authority of the Church, so we're immune from needing to conform to the errors".  I think the real danger is that the longer this situation exists - now a full generation - you will have Catholics who grow up in the SSPX Church who know nothing but that, and are so alienated from other Catholics that they cling to SSPX-only Masses.  This is the attitude of schism that must be avoided.  The longer it goes on the higher the chance of a split between some of the SSPX clergy and lay Catholics from the Church.  I really hope this does not happen.

I don't believe that is a real danger at all. I converted to SSPX Catholicism a few years ago, so have only known the "SSPX church" and only attend SSPX masses, but do not see myself as schismatic. I am a Catholic, it's just that I choose to follow traditional Catholicism. The fact that the modern majority of the Catholic Church has veered off this path is a problem it has to look at itself ,and the more I learn about the crisis in this modern church the more I think that they, the modern Catholic Church, and not the SSPX, face the bigger problems.
Reply
#33
(01-23-2012, 01:41 AM)calicatholic Wrote: It's very convenient to say " well, we're outside of the authority of the Church, so we're immune from needing to conform to the errors".  I think the real danger is that the longer this situation exists - now a full generation - you will have Catholics who grow up in the SSPX Church who know nothing but that,

Wishful thinking.  Sadly, today in age, there are too many children that are exposed to the irreverence of the Novus Ordo mass, and that it is very difficult to educate them on how to discern the good from the bad.
Good Catholics just avoid that all together and go to the Misa Tradicional en Latin.

Examples, well, there is a whole plethora of them. In the NO (Jeans, shorts, levis, mini skirts, big logos on clothing, cleavage, no veils, no respect for the Blessed sacrament.)
And that's only for starters. (you know the welcoming part on the NO mass). As far as the Liturgy, Communion, holding hands, raising hands, guitars playing and all that, well that's another part of the "Crisis". But the main part of the "Crisis" is what is behind the scenes: DOCTRINE.
That has changed. Some will argue it's only a matter of interpretation. Call it what you will. But 50+ years ago, there was no issue. Now there is.
Before you could go to your parish priest to ask for advice on a moral issue. Now (If one is morally responisble) you have to seek at least a second opinion. Because, the interpretation of Doctrine is now subject to personal interpretation or feelings or on a case-by-case basis.
Whereas you go to a Traditional priest. He will answer you with a cut and dry answer. He cuts out all of the bull. And gives you Truth.
The TLM has developed naturally throughout the history of the Church. I cannot say the same thing for the Novus Ordo.
In a very simplistic way you can say that the Mass mirrors doctrine.
Now a days, you don't see priests/nuns wearing the correct religious attire. In fact, you cannot distinguish them from layfolk. Unless you know them personally.


That Calicatholic, is what we mean about the Crisis.

In The TLM in Mexico (FSSPX),  and when we have traveled to the USA to the FSSPX, there have been zero abuses, zero irreverence.

Make no mistake. the FSSPX is part of the Catholic Church. It is a bastion of tradition.     
Reply
#34
(01-22-2012, 02:38 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:35 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:34 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote: My questions have not been answered, just as Bp. Williamson did not answer the question regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this an attribute of a schismatic mentality, to not see reality in its fullness?

And I'm not much worried about what anyone here thinks of me.  It's not about me.

Well if you think thats true you've got a schismatic mentality  LOL

It's unfortunate that rather than address the questions, you condemn. That's just what Bp. Williamson does.

Eye-roll The problem is that you think 'address the question' = get the answer I want, sadly that isn't the way it works. Your questions have been answered, you just don't like the answers you've been given much like those in Rome.

Actually I think Meg's right.  At least in so far as this topic is concerned, the question was never directly answered.  Now Bishop Williamson may have "answered it with another question" but did not specifically address the question posed to him...or if he did it went over my head.  And I've read through the topic and original post twice. 
Reply
#35
(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?

Yes, that's correct - there is no reason for any reconciliation until the authority returns to the truth.

Reply
#36
(01-23-2012, 02:54 AM)Guardian Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 02:38 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:35 PM)Meg Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:34 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 01:30 PM)Meg Wrote: My questions have not been answered, just as Bp. Williamson did not answer the question regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. Is this an attribute of a schismatic mentality, to not see reality in its fullness?

And I'm not much worried about what anyone here thinks of me.  It's not about me.

Well if you think thats true you've got a schismatic mentality  LOL



It's unfortunate that rather than address the questions, you condemn. That's just what Bp. Williamson does.

Eye-roll The problem is that you think 'address the question' = get the answer I want, sadly that isn't the way it works. Your questions have been answered, you just don't like the answers you've been given much like those in Rome.

Actually I think Meg's right.  At least in so far as this topic is concerned, the question was never directly answered.  Now Bishop Williamson may have "answered it with another question" but did not specifically address the question posed to him...or if he did it went over my head.  And I've read through the topic and original post twice. 

The question was answered in this thread, quite succintly, namely that legitimate authority cannot act against the good of souls, that therefore the SSPX can pass over commands contrary to the salvation of souls and that in the current situation it is entirely prudent to keep onself away from Rome in order to not expose one's faith to error and heterodoxy.
Reply
#37
(01-21-2012, 10:38 AM)a83192 Wrote: For indeed the modern world is glamorous and weighty, and so is Rome ! Here is how an Italian friend senses the glamour of the Vatican offices: "To step into the Roman palaces is a daring enterprise because the very air you breathe within is irresistible. The fascination of these hallowed halls comes not so much from the charming officials (by no means all of them are charming) as from the sense the halls exude of the2000-year duration of Church history. Is the fascination from Heaven? Is it from Hell ?In any case the mere atmosphere of the Vatican seduces visitors and tames their wills."

So now the beauty and glory and majesty of the Vatican is possibly from hell?  That sounds like a typical protestant attack on the "glamor" of the Roman Catholic Church.  It also sounds like a NO attack on the glamor of the Traditional Mass.  The fascination of the hallowed halls IS from heaven.  That is why they are hallowed.  They do exude the 2000 year duration of Church history.  To call it a seduction is sad.  I might as well call the TLM a seduction... the beautiful vestments a seduction... the incense and chants a seduction... maybe those Puritans had the right idea after all.  And maybe all those bare modernist churches have the right idea after all.

We are called to love our parents, even if they are parenting us poorly.  Likewise we are called to love Rome and the Holy Father, even if he could be a better Father.
Reply
#38
Bishop Williamson sounds like an Anglican in this article, sadly. Those damn Roman Papists!
Reply
#39
(01-23-2012, 02:53 PM)SPB Wrote: Bishop Williamson sounds like an Anglican in this article, sadly. Those damn Roman Papists!

Oh please  Eye-roll Papists aren't catholics anyway, they're ignorant of the limits of papal power and give the rest of us Catholics a bad name.

...but seriously Bp Williamson an anglican  LOL if you'd met him you'd never say that
Reply
#40
(01-23-2012, 02:58 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Papists aren't catholics anyway, they're ignorant of the limits of papal power and give the rest of us Catholics a bad name.

You need to check out the definition of Papist.  It doesn't mean someone who is ignorant of the limits of Papal power.  Please don't redefine words.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)