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

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

Catholic Culture - The Edgar Schein Model Analysis of the Pre and Post Conciliar Culture

 + JMJ    So ... I was thinking ... I've used Edgar Schein's (RIP) organizational cultural model (link ) in my research  ... why not apply it in a comparison between the Catholic Organizational Culture - PRE and POST Second Vatican Culture? Of course, this will be from my own perspective, I'm certain that others will think differently. 😁 Also, apologies for a rather long article. Graphic: https://mutomorro.com/edgar-scheins-culture-model/ Below is a quick mapping of the cultural factors that I could think of.  Since the Church is vast and composed of millions of Souls, it is necessarily a limited cultural map.  Yet, I think it will still be useful to assess what has changed since the Second Vatican Council. Additional Reading:  5 enduring management ideas from MIT Sloan’s Edgar Schein | MIT Sloan Artifacts Artifacts are tangible and observable aspects of the culture being examined.  All organizations have them. Walmart has their Walmart chant, Charismatics have their spe

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

Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit

+ JMJ Something that always and I do mean always causes me to cringe interiourly is when non-Trad Catholics use the words "Holy Spirit" instead of "Holy Ghost". First, this is a natural response because of long usage of "Holy Ghost" as soon as I hear the word "Holy" in a prayer, my brain automatically is prepped to hear "Ghost" afterwards.  This creates a short period of interiour dissonance (discomfort). Now the question I would like to ponder today is whether or not there is a difference and whether or not there is a right way vs wrong way.