"Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLIV - 354 (English)

[tmw89]

Number CCCLIV (354)     26th April 2014

RESISTANCE POLICY -- II

The Faith must be preserved despite the Shepherd being struck (cf. EC 348). If there was one man given to us by God to show us how to keep the Faith in stricken times, by preserving the true sacrifice of the Mass and the true Catholic priesthood, that man was certainly Archbishop Lefebvre (1905-1991). And since the disaster wrought upon the Church by the Conciliar Shepherds has not essentially changed since his time, then what he said and wrote applies essentially today, and any newcomer to the disaster cannot do better than read and study his words.

However, the disaster has also grown much worse since his death, and any so-called movement of "Resistance" today will do well to learn the lessons that are there to be learned from the threatening fall of that Society of St Pius X which it was the Archbishop's stupendous achievement to found, within the collapsing mainstream Church, for the preservation of the Faith. Why is the leadership of the SSPX now taking it in a direction different from the Archbishop's, a direction that must lead to the SSPX's entirely similar collapse ?

Because, in my opinion, the leaders which the SSPX chose for itself after the Archbishop's death in 1991 at the General Chapters of 1994 and 2006, never took the full measure of the Conciliar disaster, because they were children of the undermined 1950's or the Revolutionary 1960's and later still. Having drunk in the Revolution with their mothers' milk, so to speak, they never understood how it wrecks from within churchmen still seeming Catholic without. In brief, these leaders have either never studied modernism, or never understood what they studied, or have been too "pious" or "supernatural" to think that it could apply to the mainstream churchmen in front of them.

Thus where Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly that the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church, Bishop Fellay (Superior General since 1994) and Fr Nicholas Pfluger (First Assistant since 2006) insist today that there can only be one Church, and so the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church. Naturally then, where the Archbishop kept the SSPX at a safe distance from the Conciliar Church, Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger want to abolish that distance and bring the SSPX back within that Church which is Conciliar. And neither Bishop Fellay nor Fr Pfluger will feel Catholic until they have achieved that end.

But the Faith is firstly in the mind and not in the feelings. It follows that whoever has, for whatever reason, begun to recognize that the present leadership of the SSPX is on the wrong track, must continue by studying the total problem of the Revolution, of modernism and of Vatican II. That is a tall order, because one can have a text-book knowledge of the Revolution and still not recognize it right under one's nose. I feel so nice when I feel that everybody else is nice that I lose from view the objective falsity of almost all of us as seen by God. One may say that it requires a special grace from God to see that falsity as he sees it, without losing one's compassion, but a soul can obtain that grace if it seeks God seriously, especially in prayer.

God is good to those that seek him, says Scripture in many places. Assuming he exists, what could he be other than supremely good to those that seek him ?

Kyrie eleison.

All of today's world feels that it is nice, But in God's eyes that's self-deceiving vice.

© 2011-2014 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved. 

A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.

Permissions inquiries should be directed to editorial@dinoscopus.org.


www.dinoscopus.org

[tradical]

+
JMJ

I believe that this EC makes even clearer the problem with Bishop Williamson's perspective on the Church of Christ.

Attached below is my Open Letter to Bishop Williamson.

Original: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/open-letter-to-bishop-williamson.html

Your Excellency,

An error in your understanding of Church Doctrine appears to have manifested itself.  I am writing this Open Letter to alert you and those who respect your judgement in these matters.

The following paragraph from  EC354 contains the core of the error:
Thus where Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly that the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church ... (Source)

Parsing the quoted statement we find that:
You believe that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that
The 'Conciliar Church',
by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church
was not the Catholic Church
First, you ascribe this belief to Archbishop Lefebvre instead of clearly stating that you hold this position.  So, at this point, it is an assumption on my part that you hold the error contained in the paragraph.

According to Church dogma, there is only one Church of Christ and there can never be two Churches that possess all four Marks of the Catholic Church.

Since a person can't lose something they don't possess,  your assertion that the "Conciliar Church" lost all four Marks of the Catholic Church supports the conclusion that prior to the supposed loss the "Conciliar Church" was in possession of all four Marks of the Catholic Church.  Following your logic, the "Conciliar Church" was the Catholic Church.

Therefore the final assertion means that the Catholic Church has lost the Four Marks and is no longer the Catholic Church. 

This is manifestly false.

If a person held a superficial view of what constitutes the Four Marks of the Church, and imprinted this view on the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is entirely possible that they would arrive at and hold a similar opinion.

However, that would not change the fact that this opinion stands in contradiction to the Church Doctrine on Indefectibility which teaches that:
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) (Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)
Assuming that you believe the Church of Christ to be indefectible, then in order to reconcile your thesis with Church teaching it is necessary to determine where the marks of the Catholic Church currently exist in their entirety.

Given that the First Vatican Council taught that the Our Lord Jesus Christ, "set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities [ Faith and Government ] and their visible foundation",  the Vicar of Christ and the first mark of the Church (Unity of Faith and Government) are inseparable.  Hence the adage that wherever you find the Vicar of Christ, you have found the Church.

Assuming that you accept Pope Francis as the successor of St. Peter and the present Vicar of Christ, it is clear as to which society is the Church of Christ.

It is with this society that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger maintain relations because, as Bishop Fellay recently stated: "we will never cut all ties with Rome. Otherwise we would simply cease to be Catholic".

The remaining marks are easily demonstrated to remain affixed to the aforesaid society, when one searches for them with the understanding of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:


Apostolic:The Church of Christ can be recognized by its Apostolic origin, for "the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession".
Catholic:The Catholic Church is Universal, "embraces ... all mankind" and includes "all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time".  Finally, the Church is called Universal because "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her".
Holy:The Church is Holy for the following reasons: it is consecrated and dedicated to God; because the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is united to its head: Our Lord Jesus Christ; and lastly the Church has the true worship of God.
Which of these marks are missing from the Church and how did the separation occur? 

The opinion that the consecration of 'modern' bishops is invalid, is held by the sedevacantists, yet as you profess to not be a sedevacantist, how has the mark of Apostolicity been lost?

The post-conciliar Popes have not changed any of the de fide teachings of the Church and the society united under Pope Francis remains that which "all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace". How has the mark of Catholicity been lost?

The Church remains consecrated and dedicated to God, even if Her hierarchy are as remiss in their duty as in the time of the Arian heresy.  How has the mark of Holiness been lost?

The answer is simple, the Marks are all intact, obscured as they are in this crisis of the Church. 

The root of the error contained in EC354 is the inability to distinguish between the Church as identified by the Four Marks and the actions of individuals who, while still remaining within the Church, wreck such havoc.

As written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
"... however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power ..."


Cordially,
Tradical

Reference: The Four Marks of the Church - A brief exposition of the Church Teaching on the Four Marks, and Visibility of the Church of Christ drawn from the documents of the First Vatican Council, The Catechism of the Councio of Trent and The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

[Gardener]

Your letter holds no weight because it's anonymous. The content may be sound, profound, etc. But you deracinate it from your own hand by anonymity.

"Suffice it to say at this point, I strongly recommend my parishioners to stay away from anonymous lectures or comments on the internet. And if we receive a letter in the mail without a return address, we should skip to the very end and if it is not signed, throw it immediately in the garbage without reading it. And I strongly recommend stay-ing away from anonymous preaching. Now if the preacher names no one else, ever, then perhaps that might be different. But this anonymity in the Internet age is nefarious in my opinion."
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf

Regards,
Jon Horton

[tradical]

I am excessively diverted!

I disagree, because the authority of the person issuing the argument should have no bearing on the veracity of the argument.

With respect to the passage quoted below.  Having read the whole page, why do you think it supports your assertion that the argument put forth lacks roots because of my posting it under a pseudonym?

- Tradical

Your letter holds no weight because it's anonymous. The content may be sound, profound, etc. But you deracinate it from your own hand by anonymity.

"Suffice it to say at this point, I strongly recommend my parishioners to stay away from anonymous lectures or comments on the internet. And if we receive a letter in the mail without a return address, we should skip to the very end and if it is not signed, throw it immediately in the garbage without reading it. And I strongly recommend stay-ing away from anonymous preaching. Now if the preacher names no one else, ever, then perhaps that might be different. But this anonymity in the Internet age is nefarious in my opinion."
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf

Regards,
Jon Horton

[Gardener]

I am excessively diverted!

I disagree, because the authority of the person issuing the argument should have no bearing on the veracity of the argument.

With respect to the passage quoted below.  Having read the whole page, why do you think it supports your assertion that the argument put forth lacks roots because of my posting it under a pseudonym?

- Tradical

Your letter holds no weight because it's anonymous. The content may be sound, profound, etc. But you deracinate it from your own hand by anonymity.

"Suffice it to say at this point, I strongly recommend my parishioners to stay away from anonymous lectures or comments on the internet. And if we receive a letter in the mail without a return address, we should skip to the very end and if it is not signed, throw it immediately in the garbage without reading it. And I strongly recommend stay-ing away from anonymous preaching. Now if the preacher names no one else, ever, then perhaps that might be different. But this anonymity in the Internet age is nefarious in my opinion."
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf

Regards,
Jon Horton

Because an Open Letter should have an author. You are effectively no one. But if you'd sign it, "John Smith" or whatever your name is, it would have weight.

Anonymity is pointless in these endeavors.

[tradical]

Such is your opinion (with which I disagree) and you did not answer either point.

I am excessively diverted!

I disagree, because the authority of the person issuing the argument should have no bearing on the veracity of the argument.

With respect to the passage quoted below.  Having read the whole page, why do you think it supports your assertion that the argument put forth lacks roots because of my posting it under a pseudonym?

- Tradical

Your letter holds no weight because it's anonymous. The content may be sound, profound, etc. But you deracinate it from your own hand by anonymity.

"Suffice it to say at this point, I strongly recommend my parishioners to stay away from anonymous lectures or comments on the internet. And if we receive a letter in the mail without a return address, we should skip to the very end and if it is not signed, throw it immediately in the garbage without reading it. And I strongly recommend stay-ing away from anonymous preaching. Now if the preacher names no one else, ever, then perhaps that might be different. But this anonymity in the Internet age is nefarious in my opinion."
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf

Regards,
Jon Horton

Because an Open Letter should have an author. You are effectively no one. But if you'd sign it, "John Smith" or whatever your name is, it would have weight.

Anonymity is pointless in these endeavors.