Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Eleison Comments Collection => Topic started by: Kaesekopf on September 14, 2014, 05:17:26 PM

Title: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: Kaesekopf on September 14, 2014, 05:17:26 PM
Number CCCLXXIV (374)   September 13, 2014

Popes Fallible

Neither liberals nor sedevacantists appreciate being told that they are like heads and tails of the same coin, but it is true. For instance, neither of them can conceive of a third alternative. See for instance in his Letter to Three Bishops of April 14, 2012 , how Bishop Fellay could see no alternative to his liberalism except sedevacantism. Conversely, for many a sedevacantist if one accepts that any of the Conciliar Popes has really been Pope, then one can only be a liberal, and if one criticises sedevacantism, then one is promoting liberalism. But not at all!

Why not? Because both of them are making the same error of exaggerating the Pope’s infallibility. Why? Might it be because both of them are modern men who believe more in persons than in institutions? And why should that be a feature of modern men? Because from more or less Protestantism onwards, fewer and fewer institutions have truly sought the common good, while more and more seek some private interest such as money (my claim on you), which of course diminishes our respect for them. For instance, good men saved for a while the rotten institution of modern banking from having immediately all its evil effects, but the rotten banksters are at last showing what the institutions of fractional reserve banking and central banks were, in themselves, from the beginning. The Devil is in modern structures, thanks to the enemies of God and man.

So it is understandable if modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the Pope and too little in the Church, and here is the answer to that reader who asked me why I do not write about infallibility in the same way that the classic Catholic theology manuals do. Those manuals are marvellous in their way, but they were all written before Vatican II, and they tended to attach to the Pope an infallibility which belongs to the Church. For instance, the summit of infallibility is liable to be presented in the manuals as a solemn definition by the Pope, or by Pope with Council, but in any case by the Pope. The liberal-sedevacantist dilemma has been the consequence and, as it were, a punishment of this tendency to overrate the person and underrate the institution, because the Church is no merely human institution.

For, firstly, the Solemn Magisterium’s snow-cap on the Ordinary Magisterium’s mountain is its summit only in a very limited way – it is completely supported by the rock summit beneath the snow. And secondly, by the Church’s most authoritative text on infallibility, the Definition of the truly Catholic Council of Vatican I (1870), we know that the Pope’s infallibility comes from the Church, and not the other way round. When the Pope engages all four conditions necessary for ex cathedra teaching, then, says the Definition, he posses ses “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine.” But of course! Where else can infallibility come from, except from God? The best of human beings, and some Popes have been very good human beings, may be inerrant, i.e. make no mistakes, but as long as they have original sin they cannot be infallible as God alone can be. If they are infallible, the infallibility must come through, but from outside, their humanity, from God, who chooses to bestow it through the Catholic Church, and that infallibility need only be a momentary gift, for the duration of the Definition.

Therefore outside of a Pope’s ex cathedra moments, nothing stops him from talking nonsense such as the new religion of Vatican II. Therefore neither liberals nor sedevacantists need or should heed that nonsense, because, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, they have 2000 years’ worth of Ordinarily infallible Church teaching by which to judge that it is nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.

© 2011-2014 BRN Associates, Inc. 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@marceleditions.com.
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: tradical on September 14, 2014, 05:21:47 PM
Always nice to see that H.E.W. is consistent in his ad hominem attacks.

P3
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: Greg on September 14, 2014, 07:24:56 PM
How is the definition of papal infallibility infallible then?  Surely before Papal Infallibility was defined, the Pope could have been "talking nonsense".

Since there was no special revelation about the conditions for ex-cathedra statements, how can we trust that the pope who first thought these conditions up was protected from error by the Holy Ghost?

Unless the infallibility was intrinsic to the Papacy how did it suddenly appear at Vat 1 ?
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: zork on September 19, 2014, 01:00:52 PM
I'm glad to see tmw89's Eleison Comments have been continued.
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: Kaesekopf on September 19, 2014, 01:16:50 PM
I'm glad to see tmw89's Eleison Comments have been continued.
Whoa chief, I started the EC collection here...  :P

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: zork on September 19, 2014, 08:05:50 PM
I'm glad to see tmw89's Eleison Comments have been continued.
Whoa chief, I started the EC collection here...  :P

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

My bad, boss.
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: Kaesekopf on September 19, 2014, 09:46:02 PM
I'm glad to see tmw89's Eleison Comments have been continued.
Whoa chief, I started the EC collection here...  :P

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

My bad, boss.

:P

:lol:
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: Conclavist on June 13, 2015, 03:46:36 PM
We have been discussing how some of these comments relating to the "mentevacantist" position of Bp. Williamson, are kind of like the sedeprivationist position.
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: QuaeriteDominum on June 19, 2015, 01:31:17 PM
H.E. is an authorivacantist. His Anglican formation helps him find the concept of a Pope charming but what he really can't abide, is a superior. He likes being in charge of what he does, where he goes, and what he says without censor, which has created a stumbling block for him several times over his career. Now, with his manor house in England and nobody to give him orders, can realize his dream of being simultaneously a 'country gentleman', Bishop, and internet blogger with an adoring fan club clamoring for a visit by him. He is in Valhalla enjoying an occasional visit from Doc White and making an occasional visit to colonies when the spirit moves him.

Likewise, the priests that are drawn to him have, almost to a person, had former issues with superiors and they now all enjoy the freedom from SG's, District Superiors, and priors to go where they please whenever they please and can say whatever they please without the fear of retribution from a boss.  Hence, this loose confederation of independent priests is most appealing to a particular type of priest and most are showing the tendency to become the absolute authority for their faithful (my way or the highway).

They will NEVER abide a leader, except perhaps for the soft-authority of Bishop Wiliiamson, who rules and punishes by the pen (keyboard). I expect their situation to devolve into the SSPV paradigm where each eventually become a Bishop with their own "seminary" and fan club - not overanxious for 'family reunions'.
Title: Re: "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLXXIV - 374 (English)
Post by: Prayerful on June 19, 2015, 01:49:47 PM
Going by posts on that angry Resistance Forum, I reckon Bp Williamson released more newsletters, but I'm a little scared of them.