Skip to main content

Where are Bishop Williamson and the 'resistance' going?

+
JMJ

For the most part the 'resistance' associates put forth a more or less continuous stream of attacks against the leadership of the SSPX.

However, periodically they take a breath and pull back the curtain on the principles which guide their actions.



Such an event happened when Bishop Williamson sat at his computer to write EC384.

Sifting out the various insinuations and manipulative tactics (intentional or otherwise) we find the following assertion:
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
In this short collection of words, Bishop Williamson has exposed with greater clarity the principle that is at variance with those of the SSPX.

Parsing the quoted statement we find that:

  1. Bishop Williamson believes that Archbishop Lefebvre believed that
  2. The 'Conciliar Church', 
  3. by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church 
  4. was not the Catholic Church
Before proceeding, it is important to understand that, according to Church dogma, there is only one Church of Christ. There can never be two Churches that possess all four Marks of the Catholic Church.

Since you can't lose something you don't possess, the assertions made by Bishop Williamson  (2 & 3) support the conclusion that prior to the loss of "all four Marks of the Catholic Church", the "Conciliar Church" was the Church of Christ.

Joining this with his final assertion, we reach Bishop Williamson's conclusion that the Catholic Church is no longer the Church of Christ.

What is disingenuous of BishopWilliamson, is that he ascribes this belief to Archbishop Lefebvre.  

Of course by doing so he gains political capital among his associates by reducing cognitive dissonance, at the expense of the truth.Once one Catholic principle (true obedience) falls, others (Indefectibility of the Church, Catholic doctrine of the Four Marks, etc) are sure to follow.

However, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have not deviated from their understanding of the phrase "Conciliar Church", if Bishop Williamson ever shared that understanding, it is obvious that he has departed from it.

Should Bishop Williamson publish a correction, I would be very pleased.  However, it has been over a year since a traditionalist acquaintance forwarded my original critique of EC281 to his excellency, so I very much doubt that a correction will be forthcoming.


P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae