SSPX Bishop Williamson: "Our Answer Will Be Negative"

[belgianwaffles9]

I knew it! The bishop is right! May God grant him many years!

Blah blah… you’re late, and by this point in the discussion, your post is pretty much meaningless.

Oh, yeah, and so is the Bishop’s little tirade, because its ulitmately up to Fellay, not him.

 

[Spirithound]

I never said the Church is not in Rome…you implied that I did. I never said the SSPX is the church, but you have implied that I have.

You claim that the Church in Rome is full of heretics. If there are no orthodox Catholics, and more specifically, no orthodox Catholic bishops in Rome, is there really a Church there?

 

[Spirithound]

Please explain to me what you are talking about when you say religious liberty exists…murder exists, does that make it right?

What did the Church do for the first 300 years of its existence? It grew, in spite of its non-status. Since the time of Constantine, and into whatever timeperiod, should the Church force itself on the populace simply because it is held by the majority?
Negative!
Sure, the world would be better if everyone was Catholic, and I mean REALLY Catholic, but you know what? My life would be better if I could see my guardian angel following me around. Might keep me from some of my favourite sins.
But guess what? It’s probably not going to happen. We need to face reality and deal with it.

 

[piouswoman]

Those are not matters having to do with doctrines of faith or morals. If you believe that the Church is teaching errors of doctrine of faith or morals,then that is to say that the gates of hell have overcome the Church.

Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, he did not promise that no pope or churchman would ever teach error.

I think it was St. John Chrysostom who said…“the floor of Hell are paved with the skulls of rotten bishops…”

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, he did not promise that no pope or churchman would ever teach error.

I think it was St. John Chrysostom who said…“the floor of Hell are paved with the skulls of rotten bishops…”

No one here disagrees with you. But you said that THE CHURCH teaches error. Not that “some individuals teach error.” You need to either prove somewhere where the Church, by its divine authority, taught error (which is impossible) or just say “sorry, i phrased it badly, i shall try to say it another way” and save face.

Oh, and i sincerely hope there’s a juicy reply from you to my post explaining all about religious liberty waiting for me when i wake up tomorrow.

 

[anthony022071]

Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, he did not promise that no pope or churchman would ever teach error.

I think it was St. John Chrysostom who said…“the floor of Hell are paved with the skulls of rotten bishops…”

If you believe Vatican 1,then you should believe that the pope will never teach errors of faith and morals ex cathedra.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).

St. Irenaeus:
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.” (Adversus Haereses 3:3:2)

Opatatus (c. 367 A.D.):
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] — of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner… Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
(Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2)

Bachiarius, monk, (fl. 420 AD):
“…none of the heresies could gain hold of or move the Chair of Peter, that is the See of faith.”
(Professio fidei, 2)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):
“He [Christ] promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd.”
(Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation”
(Letter 17, 21, A.D. 519).

St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. AD 580-662):
“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650], in PG 91:144)

veniaminov.blogspot.com/2004/11/and-you-can-quote-me-eastern-papal.html

 

[EddieArent]

Blah blah… you’re late, and by this point in the discussion, your post is pretty much meaningless.

Oh, yeah, and so is the Bishop’s little tirade, because its ulitmately up to Fellay, not him.

Bishop Fellay will NOT do this alone, even if he wanted. IIRC, months ago he stated that any such deals would go through a “general chapter” of sorts, e.g. the priests that elected him as superior general of the SSPX which includes the other three bishops, seminary rectors, district superiors, some older priests, etc. There is no red button here. It’s not a Bishop Fellay vs. the other three bishops or whatever you wish. The Bishop has stated time and time again that the two are on the same page.

When it is announced that the fight will continue, I will recite the Te Deum. I try to recite it each day at least a few times, but from now until we know for sure, it goes silent.

 

[Spiller]

It wasn’t necessarily a waste. Hopefully a significant number of souls will be driven from the SSPX once they recognize how deluded their leaders have become.

That’s true.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Bishop Fellay will NOT do this alone, even if he wanted. IIRC, months ago he stated that any such deals would go through a “general chapter” of sorts, e.g. the priests that elected him as superior general of the SSPX which includes the other three bishops, seminary rectors, district superiors, some older priests, etc. There is no red button here. It’s not a Bishop Fellay vs. the other three bishops or whatever you wish. The Bishop has stated time and time again that the two are on the same page.

When it is announced that the fight will continue, I will recite the Te Deum. I try to recite it each day at least a few times, but from now until we know for sure, it goes silent.

I guess Fellay will let a madman push him around instead of doing what’s right, then.

If the SSPX doesn’t fix this situation, then I don’t know what’s going to happen. Too many doctrinaire *******s, apparently, who can’t be patient and can’t work diplomatically. Maybe they want to be on the fringe. Maybe they enjoy poking fun at the Novus Ordo instead of fixing things.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Here’s Williamson’s blog post on the subject.

dinoscopus.blogspot.com/

Very sad. Very deluded.

He interprets the five conditions as a sellout to modernism. I always knew his excellency was a nut, but this really confirms it.

Well, I found myself in agreement with the Bishop on one point, at least:

And if they did go ahead with such a declaration [of excommunication], Catholics should rejoice, because after several years of some ambiguity there would once more be some clarity ! Twenty years ago, all Society Superiors gathered in Econe rejoiced in their bishops’ “excommunication”. Would not the same thing happen this time round if Rome also cast priests and laity into its outer darkness ? Not that any of us would rejoice in Rome’s self-abasement… Kyrie eleison.

I think the Church would save as many souls as it would lose if they made a formal declaration so that people would stop making excuses for attending their chapels.

 

[Spiller]

In the end it’s all about the souls of the SSPX members.

I’m guessing no more than 5% of church-going Catholics have ever even heard of the SSPX. Maybe 1% care about their antics. After their latest rejection, that probably drops to .10%

All of this is meant to help their members. Their actions on the other hand will have next to no impact on the Church.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

In the end it’s all about the souls of the SSPX members.

I’m guessing no more than 5% of church-going Catholics have ever even heard of the SSPX. Maybe 1% care about their antics. After their latest rejection, that probably drops to .10%

All of this is meant to help their members. Their actions on the other hand will have next to no impact on the Church.

I wish I could believe that. But, I worry that they do hurt the Church. Do they matter to John and Jane Catholic in St. Suburbia parish? Probably not. But, to those of us who hope to see greater availability of the Latin Mass and a general reform of the liturgy in our dioceses, I think the SSPX hurts us. In my archdiocese, they actively “poach” people away from the diocesan Latin Mass. (There’s an argument going on right now about whether or not flyers promoting the SSPX chapel can be handed out on church property.) Meanwhile, the Archbishop says “Nobody wants the Latin Mass.” He’s right: only about 25 people show up each week. Of course, over 100 people go to the SSPX, but they’re not in his flock, so they don’t count.

Most Catholics in my home parish honestly believe that the Latin Mass is not allowed. They’re vaguely aware that there is some schismatic group who does them. They have no idea that there is a licit Latin Mass, and they’ve never heard of Cardinal Hoyos.

I think there’s a real crisis in the Church. I think the Church can be saved through the liturgy. I hate to see this being derailed.

As someone said in another thread: the SSPX is siphoning off the cream of the crop. I think they siphon it off and then poison it. Just think how much good those 100 traditionalists could do if they could only be faithful!

 

[Genesis315]

Do the SSPX affirm that the particular Church of Rome has fallen into error? Sometimes what they say reads like they are saying just that, but this proposition is contrary to the faith–Pope Sixtus IV solemnly condemned that proposition as manifest heresy in his condemnations of the errors of Peter de Osma. It was not an issue of solemn definitions being in error, but of the particular Church of Rome itself falling away from the faith.

I don’t want to misinterpret the SSPX’s position concerning this topic–sometimes when it appears someone is saying one thing, upon further investigation it will be discovered that they were not intending that meaning.

As an aside, he’s a really good article on the indefectability of the particular Church of Rome (that is, the Church of the city of Rome over which the bishop of Rome presides):

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=608

 

[Genesis315]

The key words that you used here are “it seems”.

I find it interesting that there are so many armchair theologians out there, speculating right and left, acting as though their opinion really mattered, making statements based on “feelings”, presuming to know better than the bishops and priests what is the right thing to do…it is laughable. People should be spending their time praying and it would certainly help to consider practicing charity.

But is this not the very problem with the SSPX and their supporters? Their whole position is based on their personal judgment that a general Council taught errors, etc. presuming to know better about Tradition than all the bishops of the world including their head. As an old Catechism put it:

Q. Is it a great sin to refuse submission to a general Council?
A. It is the greatest act of criminal pride and presumption, accompanied by the awful guilt of heresy or schism, or both. We call it extremely criminal, as well as irrational; because the man who will not submit, prefers his own single opinion*—and this in a matter, regarding which he is neither qualified nor authorized to judge—*to the deliberately formed decision of an immense assemblage of the best qualified, and most competently authorized, legitimate judges.

Again, even if the charism of infallibility is not present, it is best to give that vast assemblage of those with the God-given authority to judge these matters the benefit of the doubt and investigate whether it is our own misunderstanding that leads us to see an apparent deviation. I think if instead of bitterly isolating themselves from the rest of the Church, the SSPX and their supporters brought blazing charity to where ever it was lacking and acted like a leaven (as love compels us to do) things would be a lot better for everyone .

In fact, if they stuck to their original purpose of implementing the decree Optatam Totius and being a group similar to the Theatines in the16th century, they would have produced a great deal of good fruit.

 

[RC_Matt]

Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, he did not promise that no pope or churchman would ever teach error.

I think it was St. John Chrysostom who said…“the floor of Hell are paved with the skulls of rotten bishops…”

So, which current teachings of the Catholic Church are leading us to hell? The Baptists, Mormons, etc., are quite specific about why we can’t be with God (e.g., don’t follow solo scriptura, worship idols, don’t know the secret handshakes and passwords taught by Joseph Smith, etc.); and I get this all the time. You obviously approach this from an entirely different angle, so I’m very curious to know which Catechistical teachings are, in your opinion, leading us to hell. I am obviously unable evaluate your position that the Church is teaching mortal error, or give it any objective credibility, unless you can specifically identify those errors; or at least outline the more significant issues.

 

[ethelzguy]

In the end it’s all about the souls of the SSPX members.

I’m guessing no more than 5% of church-going Catholics have ever even heard of the SSPX. Maybe 1% care about their antics. After their latest rejection, that probably drops to .10%

All of this is meant to help their members. Their actions on the other hand will have next to no impact on the Church.

I’ve asked around here and a neighboring parish, and NOBODY even knew what I was referring to. Even both pastors rolled their eyes. One stated, “I don’t have time for that nonsense. They can come into Communion with Rome, or not, that’s their decision at this point.”

 

[ethelzguy]

But, to those of us who hope to see greater availability of the Latin Mass and a general reform of the liturgy in our dioceses, I think the SSPX hurts us. In my archdiocese, they actively “poach” people away from the diocesan Latin Mass.

Does an individual who allows him/herself to be “poached” by the SSPX not share the responsibility…by allowing their pride and insistience on a certain Mass form to pull them away from the HMC into an “irregular” condition?

 

[Genesis315]

I found it interesting that Bishop Williamson notes that using the “stick” usually causes divisions and rebellions to harden rather than soften and heal–yet it is the policies promulgated by the Second Vatican Council that sought to heal schisms and heresies and to draw people to the faith not by the stick that the SSPX criticize the most.

 

[pnewton]

I found it interesting that Bishop Williamson notes that using the “stick” usually causes divisions and rebellions to harden rather than soften and heal–yet it is the policies promulgated by the Second Vatican Council that sought to heal schisms and heresies and to draw people to the faith not by the stick that the SSPX criticize the most.

So the stick is okay as long as he is holding it and hitting Jew and Protestants, but not if he is on the other end.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If this is supposed to imply that the SSPX perform invalid confessions, marriages, and confirmations…I would wonder why the Church hasn’t warned 1 million+ faithful that their sins are not absolved and their marriages are not valid.

These sacraments require faculties to be granted to perform them by the local ordinary. As the SSPX have separated themselves from the Church the local bishops do not grant them such faculties so their celebration of them are invalid.

I was referring to the Orthodox. Someone contended that they weren’t schismatics.

The Church has stated this, it is not a contention by me. If you will read my post you will see a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states that one can not be born into a state of schism.

Problem here is one of people raising themselves above the Church as the ultimate authority.