Skip to main content

Bishop Williamson denounces resistance to be sedevacantist - Part 2

+
JMJ

Now we know that Bishop Williamson already noted that Sedevacantists hold that the documents of V2 need to be tossed into the bin.

What other aspects did he note about the moderate or extreme Sedevacantists (note the full article can be found here)?

How about this:
(1) Pope John-Paul II is so far from being Catholic that one may seriously doubt whether he is Pope at all.
... and perhaps this ...
(2) The official Church and its leaders have gone so far in their false “renewal” that they may be ignored by Catholics.
... and of course this ...
(3) Present Church superiors have so betrayed the Faith that they can in no way be considered the real churchmen.
I admit that the 'resistance', while it has some core common beliefs, also has a flair for diversity and sedevacantism.



Here's a couple posts that I found on 'resistance' websites:
 Is Francis I a valid pope?
According to Catholic News Service, Pope Francis was “ordained” a priest on December 13, 1969.  Because the conciliar ordination rite was promulgated almost 18 months before that, it seems certain that Pope Francis received a conciliar ordination.  Since we hold that there is serious reason to doubt the validity of all conciliar ordinations, a person might wrongly argue that "Francis I cannot be pope, since he might not even be a valid priest".
This errant supposition stems from the failure to understand the difference between the pope’s juridical power and authority, in contrast to his power to confect the sacraments, through his priestly ordination and Episcopal consecration.  In fact, “any male Catholic who has come to the age of reason – even a layman … may be chosen to fill the office of Pope ….  it would be legally possible to elect even a married man. ….   It would be possible … that a person might be elected Pope who is not … a bishop ….  When a candidate is found to have the necessary number of votes and has manifested his willingness to accept the office, he is thereby pope.  He needs no ceremony of consecration to elevate him to the papacy. … He would become Pope as soon as he was lawfully chosen, and could then perform all the duties of the Papacy which pertain to jurisdiction; but he could not ordain or consecrate until he himself had been [validly] raised to the episcopate by other [valid] bishops.”  The Externals of the Catholic Church, by Fr. John F. Sullivan, Kennedy & Sons, 1917, pp. 6-8.
Thus, Pope Francis is the legitimate pope with full jurisdiction, even though his ordination to the priesthood, and consecration as a bishop, are inherently doubtful.
This 'acceptance' of Pope Francis as a legitimate Pope who isn't a priest/bishop a smoke screen for sedevacantism.  Because as noted by the same author:
It would be possible, though far from probable, that a person might be elected Pope who is not already a Bishop. He would become Pope as soon as he was lawfully chosen, and could then perform all the duties of the Papacy which pertain to jurisdiction; but he could not ordain or consecrate until he himself had been raised to the episcopate by other Bishops.
If the rite of ordination is invalid (read: contravenes indefectibility) how is a non-prelate Pope going to be elevated to the episcopate for other non-Bishops. The author is alleging that, in principle, there is doubt about all the Latin-Rite Bishops of the Church since they were practically all ordained after the cited changes.

What did Archbishop Lefebvre think?
The ‘matter’ of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the ‘form,’ namely, the words of ordination” (ibid., p.51). 
What are the three components of a sacrament?  Matter, Form and Intention.  If Form is present, then the Intention is assumed.

Obviously, this is just another deviation from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre - which unsurpisingly is sedevacantism.

Casting about on the 'resistance' internet we find the following:
Although I recognize that The Office of Pope is by election, and I recognize his ‘Authority’, Pope Francis deserves my disobedience in view of his Apostasy from The Holy Roman Catholic Faith of Tradition = TRUTH. He is destroying what is left after the rubber stamp of Vatican II set up by infiltrators: freemasons and other demonic groups.

Again we have an opinion that Bishop Williamson, at least before he changed, would have classified as 'sedevacantist' (see quote #2 and #3).

So who has changed?  The SSPX - - - I don't think so!

P^3



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

War: SSPX

 + JMJ We seem to be in transition from the persecution of the SSPX and other faithful Catholics to a civil war within the Catholic Church i.e. a true schism. Several Bishops, Priests and Dioceses have rejected outright Fiducia Supplicans (link) . This, in my opinion (IMO), is a new inflection point on the way to what will amount to an civil war within the Catholic Church. Pope Francis had spent the past ten years putting the final touches on the fault-lines within the Church and this may be the final blow that actually awakens Our Lord sleeping in the bow of the Barque of St. Peter.  That is something that we need to remember, Our Lord is with his Church, even on its way to Calvary. So, what is about to happen is that, IMO, faithful Catholics will find themselves in the same situation as the SSPX.  Persecuted and fighting for the heart of the Catholic Church. The history of the SSPX provides a microcosm of what we might expect to happen in the Catholic Church during a 'civil war&#