Bishop Williamson denounces resistance to be sedevacantist

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

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

+ JMJ Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog