Skip to main content

Of Apples and Trees - Updated 2

Image
By
+
JMJ


Updates at the end of the article ...

I've recently been accused of mis-interpreting Bishop Williamson and 'jumping in the middle' of his EC354.

Specifically this portion contains an error - can you pick it out?
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.

The first is that Bishop Williamson is ascribing a belief to Archbishop Lefebvre.  This is simply one of the tactics used - to ascribe to another a belief that he (Bishop Williamson) wishes to impart upon his readers.



Here's the core element of this particular error:

the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church

Let's parse this statement and  please realize that this is all Bishop Williamson's thoughts, not those of the Archbishop.


Point by point:

  1. Make equivalence between Conciliar Church and Catholic Church. (How SSPX <as opposed to Bishop Williamson et al> defines term: Conciliar Church )
  2. Catholic Church loses Four Marks of the Catholic Church - Oops Bishop Williamson is advocating Sede-Vacantism because the Pope is half of the Mark of Unity.
  3. Proceeds to deny the doctrine of Indefectibility.

Welcome to the brave new world of Bishop Williamson.

Now whether or not Bishop Williamson meant this heresy/error is completely irrelevant.  But it is clearly there and is completely consistent with +Williamson's muddled thinking in EC281.

Or is it 'muddled' thinking?

While "resistors" will make excuses for this 'muddled' thinking, I give Bishop Williamson more credit.  He is an educated and intelligent man who is skilled at manipulating people's opinions. Just look at how he puts forth his own opinion disguised as that of Archbishop Lefebvre's. That he puts forth muddled thinking is, from my point of view, consistent with his mode of operation.

He basically spouts something conspiratory and then says "I don't know, you decide".

Very skillful indeed.


P^3

Update 1: 
There is a person who is continuing to have trouble with the phrase "the conciliar Church, by losing ..." etc.  He appears to believe that I am operating under a confirmation bias. In any case, the first sentence (as noted above) is in its complete context below and logically can stand on its own.

Red: The Conciliar Church cannot lose that which it did not have, ergo, if the 'Conciliar Church' had all Four Marks - it 'was' the Catholic Church. The is the core error within the document.

Blue: This is correct there can only ever be one Church of Christ.  This is Dogma.

Purple (or is it Lavender?): This is a fallacy because the phrase 'conciliar Church' as a specific meaning for the SSPX.  That Bishop Williamson has abandoned this understanding is irrelevant to the argument. (How SSPX <as opposed to Bishop Williamson et al> defines term: Conciliar Church )

 Green: This is Bishop Williamson's opinion and is also 'false'.  If Bishop Fellay et al wanted to 'abolish that distance', then it would have been accomplished already - except for something that Bishop Williamson is having difficulty agreeing with: Obedience.  Bishop Williamson also ignores what Archbishop Lefebvre said 1 and 2 years after the consecrations.

So now let us re-examine the doctrinally offensive statement (highlighted in Red below).

The assertion made is that the 'Conciliar Church' lost all Four Marks of the Church. Grammatically and logically this is sound as the subject "Conciliar Church" is indicated by the verb lost at one point in time being in possession of all four marks of the Catholic Church.

Catholics know (or should) that only one commonwealth can possess all four marks of the Church.  That commonwealth is the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

Catholics know (or should) that the Catholic Church is indefectible. Meaning, amongst other things, that it will last until the end of the world.

So, following Bishop Williamson's logic, the Conciliar Church was at one time the Catholic Church and lost all four marks of the Church.

Update 2:
A physicist once told me "if a person can't explain their thesis without resorting to a math formula, then they don't have a deep enough understanding of the material".  

In a similar way I would comment on 'resistors' - that if they can't explain their rationale without resorting to a careful selection of quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre - then they don't have a deep enough understanding of the material.

If one attempts to justify their position (ie resistors) based on various quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre, they are locked in a subjectivist death sprial because they are arguing what they 'think' Archbishop Lefebvre meant in the present context. Which is, barring Divine Intervention, impossible 

The only way to even get close to being able to issue a relatively certain guess of what Archbishop Lefebvre would opine on the 'resistance' is to examine ALL of his works and actions, distill the principles and then use those principles as a guide.

No 'resistor' that I have encountered has had the patience to do that.

I have a short-cut, I shine the light of doctrine on the statements - irrespective of who uttered them - and determine if the statement is consistent or contradicts doctrine.  Let me clarify, Church doctrine.

Now a 'resistor' (assumption on my part) has been unable to grasp that I don't really need to concern myself about making a subjective judgement about Bishop Williamson's thoughts as he wrote the words quoted below. Nor do I need to make a subjective judgement about Archbishop Lefebvre when he made various statements that could be taken in a similar manner.

However, I can objectively analyse the statement below using the rules of grammar and logical and conclude - objectively that it is heretical. Meaning that it contradicts the doctrine of the Church.
the Conciliar Church, by losing all four marks of the Catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic), was not the Catholic Church
Logically and by Church doctrine:

  1. If the 'Conciliar Church' had all four marks of the Catholic Church - then it IS the Catholic Church.
  2. To say that the Catholic Church has lost all four marks of the Catholic Church contravenes primarily the doctrine of indefectibility.
Period.

If this is a true reflection of Bishop Williamson's thought, then it is heretical and he is plodding an old wide road.

Now if the 'resistor' were to admit that this statement is heretical, then we could move on to examine whether or not Bishop Williamson internally by his words and actions appears to believe the above statement.

More succinctly, the thesis that I would like to test is whether or not Bishop Williamson still believes and adheres to the following principles and doctrines of the Catholic Church:

  1. The Church is "A body of men united together by the profession of    the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments,    under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman    Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii,    9) - Catholic Encyclopedia
  2. This Church includes both the good and the bad.  Even if the hierarchy, is 'debased by crime' they are still within the Church and    retain their authority - Catechism of the Council of Trent
  3. "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
  4. The Church is visible, and the foundation of both its visibility and unity is the Pope - Ott and First Vatican Council.
  5. Because of indefectibility the Church, even now, retains the four marks (One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic). Following the principle of indefectibility and the special infallibility afforded to the Church in her discipline and laws, the new sacraments as promulgated are valid and  provide grace under the normal conditions (form, matter, intention).
  6. Obedience due to a superior is required if the command falls within  the scope of authority and are not 'against God'.  Disobedience in this  condition is sinful - Summa 2,2, Q104, A5
The complete list of principles can be found here.

P^3

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

By
 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin
Post a Comment
Read more

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ 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
Post a Comment
Read more

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ 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
Post a Comment
Read more

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

By
 + JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa
Post a Comment
Read more