Are the SSPX in schism?

[bear06]

Did you read the link? That paper would be utterly failed by any University professor. I’m sort of embarassed for the bishop, I mean, what must his flock think of him after reading that jumbled mess?

Yep. Most of Williamson’s writings are pretty out there. However, he gets a pass like Woods and Ferrara. Have you read the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History? I love all of his arguments but he fails to back up a lot of it.

 

[GerardP]

Wow. I just read Bishop Williamson’s article and got the distinct impression that the majority of Veritatis Spelndor went significantly over his head.

You got the “impression”? From the interior contemplation brought about by your “vital immanence?”

He also seems to have great difficulty creating footnotes or citing page numbers for his citations.

It’s a letter, not a position paper. It also cites all the relative paragraphs in the encyclical for comparison. And if you read the letter you’d see that most of the time he simply points out contradictions within the encyclical itself.

I have to tell you if he were to submit this paper in a philosophy class, the grade would not be pretty.

He did alright at Cambridge he got along with Albert Schweitzer in his early years. He can speak five languages fluently. He’s taught philosophy to priests that are the envy of the world at this time. He’s cultured, a great musician, well read and probably one of the most joyful people I’ve ever met. One of the priests I know said, “Bishop Williamson will be planting trees on the last day.”

I don’t think at his age, he’s worried about getting another degree or what his grade would be in a modern university.

He says the Pope is unduly influenced by Kant but provides absolutely no reference to support this assertion.

The JPII institute has a course:

Anthropology of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II

This course examines, in its first half, the philosophical sources used by Karol Wojtyla, in particular, Kant, Schelling, and Hume. The course’s second part is given over to an analysis of Wojtyla’s philosophical writings, especially the Lublin Lectures, The Acting Person, and several articles.

johnpaulii.edu/courselst.html

His attempt to refute the Pope’s section condemning proportionalism is laughable.

You mean it’s funny how he is able to use the Pope’s own arguments to undermine Catholic Morality.

Unfortunately a recent tragic example of this is the brilliant young concert pianist and composer Stephen Hough. He was on “the Journey Home” years ago. He was struggling with homosexuality and living a chaste life until he read “Love and Responsibility” by Card. Wojtyla. He now does not live a chaste life.

stephenhough.com/site/writings/the_tablet.pdf

"I remained a musician, accepting the Church’s prohibition, buried under my work, avoiding “occasions of sin”, destroying certain friendships before there was any chance of them developing into anything intimate – in many ways a happy yet somehow shrunken life.

It was when reading Pope John Paul II’s famous book Love and Responsibility, published in 1960 when he was an auxiliary bishop
in Krakow, that I first began to think again about this issue. You cannot offer such a radiant and dazzling vision of love and
human relationships to your readers, and then exclude those who happen to have “green eyes”. Once you have affirmed, as he did controversially and courageously for a Catholic bishop
of his time, the sacredness of the human body and its self-gift in the sexual act, you have opened a floodgate of recognition for
all who have both bodies to reverence and “selves” to give."

He launches into an example of a couple using the pill because their “freedom of conscience” says they can??? Apparently, Bishop Williamson missed this statement on what freedom of conscience means:

Interesting that you say that when he quotes that very passage.

He seems confused and unable to articulate his points.

No he doesn’t.

He constantly refers not to actual text, but to his own summary of the text at the beginning of the paper (a telling tactic, indeed).

Actually each of those little numbers is a reference to the text. There are about 41 of them.

It is as though he builds his strawmen and then proceeds to knock them down.

You mean your straw man.

 

[GerardP]

Lastly, and I mean this most charitably, I question Bishop Williamson’s depth of study in the subject of philosophy.

Bishop Williamson’s conclusions are identical to Fr. Malachi Martin’s concerning JPII’s philosophy. Fr. Martin had better credentials than JPII.

The bishop also knew that JPII studied Kant. Something you don’t seem to be aware of.

From his biography it appears as though he only has an undergraduate degree and nothing more???

Ah yes. JPII only wrote for those with advanced degrees. Of course. The snob Pope. It’s interesting how Williamson can dismantle so effectively these great intellects.

Maybe you could post a small section (one paragraph perhaps) of Veritatis Splendor and then dissect it for us in order to reveal the errors.

I would normally be willing to jump through hoops for you. But the bishop has very cogently pointed out the contradictions and problems in the encyclical.

I’ve already pointed out some of the errors in Ecclesia Dei on this thread.

Maybe we can start a thread and I’ll point out the non-sequiturs in Fides et Ratio and the scandalous errors in Ut Unum Sint.

Suffice it to say, despite your looking down your nose at traditionalists. We are not ignorant of JPII’s writings actions or philosophy.

Perhaps you can point out some of the errors in Cardinal Siri’s “Gethsemane” or Romano Amerio’s Iota Unum or Atila Sinke Guimareas’ “In the Murky Waters of Vatican II” ?

 

[GerardP]

Always, always watch this with radical traditionalists. Footnotes and citations don’t seem to concern them. If they say it, we’re just supposed to accept it as fact. Unfortunately, far too many people fall for this. I’ve seen several of those who realized this come out of the SSPX because they realize the faultiness of the statements.

Would you say this is true of Atila Sinke Guimareas?

Don’t you think the footnotes and citations are copious and thorough in his series “Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani”?

And don’t forget about “radical” conservatives. I asked Patrick Madrid how many SSPX priests he interviewed for 'More Catholic than the Pope."

He didn’t answer me.

I think it was zero.

Yet the book is full of “SSPX priests say this and many SSPX priests say that.”

And let’s not forget about the Surprised by Fiction series. Great footnotes on those little anecdotes.

Don’t blow smoke that you can’t breathe in.

 

[GerardP]

I’m just trying to ascertain if Gerard is referring to the above 3 being liberal on the subject or someone else. I think it funny that he would find them so liberal on a matter so serious and encourage people to follow them.

Yes. I think LeFebvre, Schmidberger and Fellay are imbibing in a liberal error. I believe Fr. Feeney had the correct understanding of EENS.

That position is the safest and it is permitted and not condemned.

 

[GerardP]

Did you read the link? That paper would be utterly failed by any University professor. I’m sort of embarassed for the bishop, I mean, what must his flock think of him after reading that jumbled mess?

I think it’s hilarious that you call it a jumbled mess. You won’t address the actual substance of what the bishop said.

And now you want to set it up for failure as a term paper.
It’s not a term paper. It’s a letter to the laiety.

It’s well written and clearly points out problems that you never even thought were present.

You didn’t even know JPII studied Kant but Williamson did.

On points, Williamson’s facts and clear observations beat your college cafeteria chatter and unsupported criticism any day of the week.

 

[GerardP]

Yep. Most of Williamson’s writings are pretty out there. However, he gets a pass like Woods and Ferrara. Have you read the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History? I love all of his arguments but he fails to back up a lot of it.

Williamson’s writings are actually pretty good. But he’s a better speaker I believe.

What specifically are you referring to in Woods American History guide?

And what’s the beef against Ferrara? EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong is notated and sourced. I’m even mentioned in it as a “concerned Catholic” on page 79. When Fr. Groeschel was denying Catholic teaching I asked Bob Sungenis to verify Fr. G’s explication of Greek. Sungenis alerted Ferrara and Ferrara was precise enough to record not only what exactly Fr. G said, but he was 100% correct in recording how he came be aware of it.

 

[GerardP]

Yes, surprisingly enough the SSPX rejects the Feeneyite position. Which makes me wonder what their problem is with Unitatis Redintigratio.

Instead of sitting around and “wondering” about it. Why don’t you actually do some firsthand research?

It would be a great benefit to Catholics everywhere if you would put half the effort Bishop Williamson put into reading and analysing Veritatis Splendor into the SSPX positionon Unitatis Redintegratio.

 

[GerardP]

Uh, this is a contradictory statement. If canonists are divided on the issue, it would appear that he chose ones you did not and, since he’s the Supreme Legistlator…

First, because he’s the legislator doesn’t mean he’s the best judge. Second, Canon Lawyers are divided after the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei. The Pope isn’t laughed at because his decision can only be overturned by himself or one of his successors.

You’ve just excused all of the rest of the schismatics in the world. Let’s see, if they believe they are right and the public asks them to rebell, well then, they must be right.

First of all, I’m not referring to schismatics because LeFebvre wasn’t a schismatic. He never denied the power of the Pope. He was disobedient and justifiably so because obedience is subordinate to justice.

Second, people are required to react according to their state in life. LeFebvre’s mission was part of the commission Jesus gave the Apostles. That is far different from someone like Padre Pio (who asked LeFebvre for a blessing) and who could use his cloistered status to turn his persecution into a grace for the Church.

How you say this with a straight face is amazing to me.

Oh it’s simple. I watched enough disgraceful papal masses to know what I’m talking about.

I think the crux of the problem is that you don’t understand the real position of the SSPX.

When you just read and spread propaganda against the SSPX people aren’t going to get the full picture.

That’s what gives me the advantage over anti-SSPXers. They are generally afraid to actually debate on facts.

They just go with trashy ad-hominems. “Tom Woods doesn’t give enough footnotes” So the natural conclusion is somehow drawn that he’s wrong.

So what if you don’t actually cite a section. There’s a different standard where you can make an accusation against someone without having to back it up.

As long as the distraction from the original point is accomplished, your mission is a success.

You simply won’t hold the anti-SSPXers to the same standard.

But inconsistency is the hallmark of the post-conciliar mentality.

 

[havemercy]

Let me preface by saying that I stand in solidarity with the SSPX. I understand their frustration and greatly desire their full re-integration. The Church needs the society, but not necessarily all of the trends that sometimes find themselves in SSPX circles.

Oh no! John Paul II studied Kant and Hume! And he largely disagrees with them. A simple reading of his works will reveal that Woytila mirrors their philosophy insofar as it is compatible with Catholic teaching. There is much sound philosophy to be found outside the faith and because a Pope was influenced by these men does not automatically make his philosophy weak. I’m looking forward to studying at the JPII institute, thanks.

Oh and also, that episode with the fellow who reverted to his sinful ways is unfortunate, but it should not lead anyone to think that Love and Responsibility is rubbish or even suggests living a homosexual lifestyle. I have read it and have greatly benefited from it. Rather, something is wrong with the man who refuses Church teaching.

JPII was a Thomist, and from what I have read from him and of him so far there is nothing to fear in his pastoral work or reflections on scripture and human sexuality, though you’re certainly free to call it “navel-gazing” or “Marry Poppins spirituality”. (I have not read the encyclicals you mentioned however.)

Back to the original topic, please. Non-sequiturs are a nuisance.

 

[bear06]

Would you say this is true of Atila Sinke Guimareas?

Don’t you think the footnotes and citations are copious and thorough in his series “Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani”?

And don’t forget about “radical” conservatives. I asked Patrick Madrid how many SSPX priests he interviewed for 'More Catholic than the Pope."

He didn’t answer me.

I think it was zero.

Yet the book is full of “SSPX priests say this and many SSPX priests say that.”

And let’s not forget about the Surprised by Fiction series. Great footnotes on those little anecdotes.

Don’t blow smoke that you can’t breathe in.

Why would he need to interview the SSPX priests when their writings are on their website? They’re hardly secretive about what they say. Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe women should attend a university (but an SSPX college is fine). He thinks the Sound of Music has pornographic elements. Why do I need to interview him to say that this is true. Also, Pete Vere, co-author, was an SSPX attendee and had personal dealings with the priests of the SSPX.

What’s your beef with the Suprised by Truth books? Those are personal stories from converts. What footnotes are needed here? :whacky:

 

[bear06]

Yes. I think LeFebvre, Schmidberger and Fellay are imbibing in a liberal error. I believe Fr. Feeney had the correct understanding of EENS.

That position is the safest and it is permitted and not condemned.

 

[bear06]

First, because he’s the legislator doesn’t mean he’s the best judge. Second, Canon Lawyers are divided after the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei. The Pope isn’t laughed at because his decision can only be overturned by himself or one of his successors.

First of all, I’m not referring to schismatics because LeFebvre wasn’t a schismatic. He never denied the power of the Pope. He was disobedient and justifiably so because obedience is subordinate to justice.

Second, people are required to react according to their state in life. LeFebvre’s mission was part of the commission Jesus gave the Apostles. That is far different from someone like Padre Pio (who asked LeFebvre for a blessing) and who could use his cloistered status to turn his persecution into a grace for the Church.

Oh it’s simple. I watched enough disgraceful papal masses to know what I’m talking about.

I think the crux of the problem is that you don’t understand the real position of the SSPX.

When you just read and spread propaganda against the SSPX people aren’t going to get the full picture.

That’s what gives me the advantage over anti-SSPXers. They are generally afraid to actually debate on facts.

They just go with trashy ad-hominems. “Tom Woods doesn’t give enough footnotes” So the natural conclusion is somehow drawn that he’s wrong.

So what if you don’t actually cite a section. There’s a different standard where you can make an accusation against someone without having to back it up.

As long as the distraction from the original point is accomplished, your mission is a success.

You simply won’t hold the anti-SSPXers to the same standard.

But inconsistency is the hallmark of the post-conciliar mentality.

Dude, I think if you take a look at the overwhelming majority of my posts, any accusation I make a against the SSPX is usually very well documented with links to Church documents and often times the SSPX itself. I really wish you’d stop with the attacks on my credibility. Re-read the book in question and you’ll notice the absence of footnotes. Again, I’d love to give this book to people but there are serious issues with the lack of footnoting. A liberal may or may not notice

I also think if you honestly paid attention, you’d realize that I call a spade a spade no matter where it lies.

 

[Sure]

I think it’s hilarious that you call it a jumbled mess. You won’t address the actual substance of what the bishop said.

And now you want to set it up for failure as a term paper.
It’s not a term paper. It’s a letter to the laiety.

It’s well written and clearly points out problems that you never even thought were present.

You didn’t even know JPII studied Kant but Williamson did.

On points, Williamson’s facts and clear observations beat your college cafeteria chatter and unsupported criticism any day of the week.

Knowing he read Kant is different from saying that he adopted Kant’s ideas. Presumably Williamson would have read Kant also if he actually studied philosophy. My point about his failure to quote properly is valid. There is no citation supporting his assertion about the Pope being a Kantian.

Look, if you want to call out JPII for being a modernist do it like a man. Take something he wrote and critique it instead of linking to crackpot amateur theologians like Williamson.

Enjoy your schism!

 

[stmaria]

TMC;2963941]The “grave fear” was that they wouldn’t get the bishops they wanted. They wanted those bishops because they, too, rejected the Church’s teachings on several issues, yes

Yes. Are you not aware that the Church has published doctrines from time to time for 2000 years? The Truth does not change, but our depth of understanding of it does. After each of the major councils there were schismatics that rejected or **did not understand the doctrines of that council. ** This is no different than those.

Could you be more specific.What doctrines of previous councils had to be explained?
You say our “depth of understanding” changes. Could you give me a specific example.
Pope John Paul said that at Vatican II there were 'Points of doctrine, because they are new" were not fully understood and needed to be explained by theologians.
Please give me your interpretation of the following from Vatican One.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
anathema.

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. "

 

[bear06]

Could you be more specific.What doctrines of previous councils had to be explained?
You say our “depth of understanding” changes. Could you give me a specific example.
Pope John Paul said that at Vatican II there were 'Points of doctrine, because they are new" were not fully understood and needed to be explained by theologians.
Please give me your interpretation of the following from Vatican One.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
anathema.

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. "

Please see the addtional highlights above. This would expound the TMC’s quote you gave. Nothing new has been given. That said, expounding has been done.

our depth of understanding of it does

 

[TMC]

Could you be more specific.What doctrines of previous councils had to be explained?
You say our “depth of understanding” changes. Could you give me a specific example.
Pope John Paul said that at Vatican II there were 'Points of doctrine, because they are new" were not fully understood and needed to be explained by theologians.
Please give me your interpretation of the following from Vatican One.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
anathema.

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. "

Seriously? I thought this was too obvious to need explaining. If there was no need to develop and explain doctrine, why have there been 21 councils??

Here is a good example – the Council of Ephesus. It settled the issue of Nestorianism, and declared Mary the Theotokus among other things. It was extremely heated. A large portion of the Church could not accept these teaching and split off. We call them the Assyrian Church. So were these doctines understood by everyone for six centuries and one day suddenly the Assyrians decided to run off? The council advanced the understanding of doctrine and some people did not agree. Just like VII.

Here is another - the Second Council of Constantinople, which was also mostly about Christology. It declared that Origen was wrong about the nature of Christ. Heard of him? There was a lot of discord in the Church over the council’s pronouncements, but there are no Origenists in the Church today. Did this Council not announce anything new? If no, how did Origen get it wrong for all those years?

As for the statement you quote from Vatican I – this merely says that the Truth is the Truth, it does not say that doctrine cannot continue to develop and evolve. More interesting to SSPX, I would think, are the Canons just below the one you quote:

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

 

[Walking_Home]

Seriously? I thought this was too obvious to need explaining. If there was no need to develop and explain doctrine, why have there been 21 councils??

Here is a good example – the Council of Ephesus. It settled the issue of Nestorianism, and declared Mary the Theotokus among other things. It was extremely heated. A large portion of the Church could not accept these teaching and split off. We call them the Assyrian Church. So were these doctines understood by everyone for six centuries and one day suddenly the Assyrians decided to run off? The council advanced the understanding of doctrine and some people did not agree. Just like VII.

Here is another - the Second Council of Constantinople, which was also mostly about Christology. It declared that Origen was wrong about the nature of Christ. Heard of him? There was a lot of discord in the Church over the council’s pronouncements, but there are no Origenists in the Church today. Did this Council not announce anything new? If no, how did Origen get it wrong for all those years?

As for the statement you quote from Vatican I – this merely says that the Truth is the Truth, it does not say that doctrine cannot continue to develop and evolve. More interesting to SSPX, I would think, are the Canons just below the one you quote:

---

Actually --it says --it cannot develope and evolve into something other and/or with a different sense than what was once declared and understood.

 

[catharina]

It’s surprising to me and instruvctive too, to realize that radical liberals and radical conservatives claim the identical stance for their predicatably contrarian views: primacy of conscience.

Who could have imagined that? Yet personal interpretation of Scripture and Canon Law can lead to so many errors when one is neither a Scripture scholar nor a canon lawyer.

 

[catharina]

I can find no good outcome for those who would “study” and absorb and support the teachings of excommunicated priests. Who would recommend such a practice?