|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 13, 2023 12:38:31 GMT -5
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 15, 2023 18:51:52 GMT -5
I don't really think the beginning of this conference is a fair comparison. St Athanasius was a Bishops with Jurisdiction and a mission from the Church that was forcefully expelled by Arian princes. The current situation with the SSPX and all that have broken from them is not the same.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 15, 2023 19:32:35 GMT -5
I'll watch the video hopefully next week. I will say in line with the title of this thread that I have thought well of Bishop Williamson since the 90's. My admiration for him comes mostly due to his very explicit denial of jurisdiction and his complete grasp of the importance of not pretending that sacramental bishops are anything more than bishops consecrated to help Catholics sacramentally with their orders, nothing more.
I would urge Catholics to go to his chapel any day over almost all sedevacantist chapels. He may get some things wrong, in my opinion, but he doesn't try to bind anyone to his opinions. My hope is that the bishops he has consecrated will continue with his thinking and spirit.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 15, 2023 22:09:32 GMT -5
I would urge Catholics to go to his chapel any day over almost all sedevacantist chapels. I'm not so sure I'd quite go that far only because I've read that he has said some things about it being ok attending the Novus Ordo Missae. It is all such a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 16, 2023 8:27:15 GMT -5
I would urge Catholics to go to his chapel any day over almost all sedevacantist chapels. I'm not so sure I'd quite go that far only because I've read that he has said some things about it being ok attending the Novus Ordo Missae. It is all such a mess. The issue with this is that all of the conclusions that any of us have formed about the Novus Ordo, it's validity, along with the status of Paul VI as antipope, for that matter are opinions. They are not yet settled by the Church, so it doesn't have to be a reason to divide us. Just disagree and move on. The problem comes up when a group, bishop, or priests take an opinion they have formed and then seek to bind others to agree. Bishop Williamson, to his credit does not do this. He has all sorts of opinions on many matters, but he never imposes his thinking on anyone, and accepts disagreement on anything unsettled. As I stated above, I disagree with him on many points, but none on matters of doctrine. He's a Catholic, who in my opinion, has incorrectly concluded some wrong opinions on unsettled matters. By and large, the sedevacantist groups, bishops, and priests, in my opinion, get many things right, but not everything. The things they are getting wrong, at least quite a few of them, are far more dangerous, as they are errors against doctrine itself, or in some cases are opinions that lead to schism, than anything said by Bishop Williamson on unsettled matters. The other problem, and this is found much more with sedevacantist groups is that when they opine on things, they expect adherence from Catholics who attend their chapels and in some cases force adherence. This controversy over Novus Ordo attendance by Catholics who cannot get to a Traditional mass has been ongoing since the crisis began. It's nothing new really, and I have known good priests who have held the same position as Bishop Williamson on this. Archbishop Lefebvre himself held different positions on this matter. Our moral certainty on unsettled matters never binds another into agreement. Once one adopts the sedevacantist opinion, and has moral certainty that Paul VI was not a pope, it's much easier to then see that since the Novus Ordo was not approved by a pope, it's not from the Church, and is then open to all sorts of danger up to and including invalidity. We then see why we must avoid this rite, but at the same time, we must remain in communion with other Catholics who disagree on this unsettled matter. Bishop Williamson, along with most priests in the SSPX and all "resistance" bishops and priests, at least as far as I am aware, do not hold the sedevacantist position, so logically one can see why they wouldn't have a problem in principle with the Novus Ordo as a rite, and may tell Catholics who otherwise would get no mass at all to go. When I go to SSPX, for example, I know this all in advance, as any other who holds the sedevacantist position will as well. I can remember many times at the SSPX, when in mass announcements or in the sermon, that John Paul or Benedict XVI was mentioned or quoted (interestingly enough Francis never seems to get any mention as the others did), or the fasting laws of the 1983 Code are described, for example, and I just tune it out, as I understand why they say what they do and I politely disagree. After all, it's unsettled, and neither Bishop Williamson or the SSPX bishops, in word or in practice, pretend they have jurisdiction to bind us on any of this anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 16, 2023 11:44:40 GMT -5
The reason I framed the thread the way I did as I saw it as a quick filter for getting rid of any dogmatist sedes who are members. They dont have to leave necessarily but they shouldnt think they are in common company here at my forum. This forum was formed to promote unity among the faithful...and that is still its mission. No one is more divisive in the Tradional minded world of Catholics than the dogmatist sede IMO. On my facebook and telegram interactions they are the nastiest bunch. I try to remind folks that the crisis in the church is literally a spiritual warzone. Imagine Gaza but on the spiritual plane. All the gruesome violence and injustice and cruelty the Jews are inflicting on Gazans...bergoglio and his NWO minions are inflicting on the faithful in the Church and the bombs are falling even more frequently. Can you imagine if there are any faithful friends and neighbors in Gaza ( and there are) can you imagine them quibbiling with each other over how they should help each other or even if one is muslim or christian as they dig their children from a collapsed building? ( not that Im excusing Islam Im making the point our Lord made between the good samaratin and the bad jew) In a warzone concession must be made to survive.Im not talking about compromising the faith God forbid! But concessions on matters of discipline and where are neighbors are in the timeline of their faith can be made (even if mistaken) if done in the name of surviving the warzone. When these hostilities cease against the Church,and we all know they will in the Churches favor... We must not have pushed so many folks away during the war that we cannot find unity after. Father Mawdsley has a good short video recently on this...( if you hate him you can leave as well) We formed this forum for the protection of unity among Traddom in a warzone...if you never forget that I think true charity can be served and you are a member in good standing here.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Dec 16, 2023 18:12:39 GMT -5
I'm not so sure I'd quite go that far only because I've read that he has said some things about it being ok attending the Novus Ordo Missae. It is all such a mess. The issue with this is that all of the conclusions that any of us have formed about the Novus Ordo, it's validity, along with the status of Paul VI as antipope, for that matter are opinions. They are not yet settled by the Church, so it doesn't have to be a reason to divide us. Just disagree and move on. The problem comes up when a group, bishop, or priests take an opinion they have formed and then seek to bind others to agree. Bishop Williamson, to his credit does not do this. He has all sorts of opinions on many matters, but he never imposes his thinking on anyone, and accepts disagreement on anything unsettled. As I stated above, I disagree with him on many points, but none on matters of doctrine. He's a Catholic, who in my opinion, has incorrectly concluded some wrong opinions on unsettled matters. By and large, the sedevacantist groups, bishops, and priests, in my opinion, get many things right, but not everything. The things they are getting wrong, at least quite a few of them, are far more dangerous, as they are errors against doctrine itself, or in some cases are opinions that lead to schism, than anything said by Bishop Williamson on unsettled matters. The other problem, and this is found much more with sedevacantist groups is that when they opine on things, they expect adherence from Catholics who attend their chapels and in some cases force adherence. This controversy over Novus Ordo attendance by Catholics who cannot get to a Traditional mass has been ongoing since the crisis began. It's nothing new really, and I have known good priests who have held the same position as Bishop Williamson on this. Archbishop Lefebvre himself held different positions on this matter. Our moral certainty on unsettled matters never binds another into agreement. Once one adopts the sedevacantist opinion, and has moral certainty that Paul VI was not a pope, it's much easier to then see that since the Novus Ordo was not approved by a pope, it's not from the Church, and is then open to all sorts of danger up to and including invalidity. We then see why we must avoid this rite, but at the same time, we must remain in communion with other Catholics who disagree on this unsettled matter. Bishop Williamson, along with most priests in the SSPX and all "resistance" bishops and priests, at least as far as I am aware, do not hold the sedevacantist position, so logically one can see why they wouldn't have a problem in principle with the Novus Ordo as a rite, and may tell Catholics who otherwise would get no mass at all to go. When I go to SSPX, for example, I know this all in advance, as any other who holds the sedevacantist position will as well. I can remember many times at the SSPX, when in mass announcements or in the sermon, that John Paul or Benedict XVI was mentioned or quoted (interestingly enough Francis never seems to get any mention as the others did), or the fasting laws of the 1983 Code are described, for example, and I just tune it out, as I understand why they say what they do and I politely disagree. After all, it's unsettled, and neither Bishop Williamson or the SSPX bishops, in word or in practice, pretend they have jurisdiction to bind us on any of this anyway. Pacelli, do you have any sources to recommend on this question of differences of opinion and only those who have reached moral certainty on these questions being bound by the conclusion? It makes sense to me and I have been repeating it, but it has occurred to me that I should have some authority to cite.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Dec 16, 2023 18:28:53 GMT -5
On the question of +Williamson, he has said some wacky things. For example: 1) He promotes Garabandal. 2) He promotes Maria Valtorta's 'Poem of the Man-God', which was placed on the index. 3) He has advised some people that it would be alright to go to the new Mass when asked.
Though this would not deter me from approaching him for the Sacraments, and I do appreciate Pacelli's points about unsettled matters of opinion, I believe the apparitions at Garabandal were censured by the local bishop and Valtorta's work was put on the index. Those two do not seem to be in the realm of opinion to me. I also think that +Williamson may have become a bit senile as he is nowhere near as lucid as his talks given in the '90s which one can find on YouTube.
There is also a priest living at Broadstairs with +Williamson who was prevented from functioning as a priest publicly before he left the SSPX. I have acquaintances who have spoken to this priest who admitted to them that he shouldn't be acting publicly as a priest, but he is actually on a small Mass circuit. Why +Williamson would have such a man doing that baffles me. Again, I would go to Broadstairs myself if necessary, and I have done, but I would not take any children. The accusations are not particularly severe compared to some things that one hears, but they are enough that this priest should be in seclusion, not on a Mass circuit.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 16, 2023 18:55:00 GMT -5
On the question of +Williamson, he has said some wacky things. For example: 1) He promotes Garabandal. 2) He promotes Maria Valtorta's 'Poem of the Man-God', which was placed on the index. 3) He has advised some people that it would be alright to go to the new Mass when asked. Though this would not deter me from approaching him for the Sacraments, and I do appreciate Pacelli's points about unsettled matters of opinion, I believe the apparitions at Garabandal were censured by the local bishop and Valtorta's work was put on the index. Those two do not seem to be in the realm of opinion to me. I also think that +Williamson may have become a bit senile as he is nowhere near as lucid as his talks given in the '90s which one can find on YouTube. There is also a priest living at Broadstairs with +Williamson who was prevented from functioning as a priest publicly before he left the SSPX. I have acquaintances who have spoken to this priest who admitted to them that he shouldn't be acting publicly as a priest, but he is actually on a small Mass circuit. Why +Williamson would have such a man doing that baffles me. Again, I would go to Broadstairs myself if necessary, and I have done, but I would not take any children. The accusations are not particularly severe compared to some things that one hears, but they are enough that this priest should be in seclusion, not on a Mass circuit. My take on Williamson, although I agree with everything Pacelli said, is that he’s got a rebellious streak. I think he is the type that will do something just because you say that he cannot. If you tell him he has to say something, he wants to say the opposite. I think on your first two points, Marcellus, he’s wacky. But I remember when the controversy of The Poem of the Man God was big, and he replied something along the lines that it was good enough or should be read every day— that’s something that a rebellious person would say. Obviously, he doesn’t think it would be better to read that work than say the missal or spend a holy hour in church. If he says that he’s just being a contrary grump. We all have faults. He says things that get a reaction out of people for sure. As for the Novus Ordo, he can’t really tell people not to attend it because that’s the rite of the current papal claimant that he recognizes. He’s kind of stuck giving that advice, given his position. I still like him though! As much as I wish he would be of our persuasion, he would probably damage our position’s credibility so maybe God,in His Providence, leaves him where he is theologically.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 16, 2023 18:56:05 GMT -5
The reason I framed the thread the way I did as I saw it as a quick filter for getting rid of any dogmatist sedes who are members. They dont have to leave necessarily but they shouldnt think they are in common company here at my forum. This forum was formed to promote unity among the faithful...and that is still its mission. I think there are plenty of reasons why people might not like him other than that they're dogmatic sedes, but that's ok. I am grateful to God that this forum exists and would encourage respectful dialogue amongst all Catholics, even if Bp Williamson isn't their favourite person.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 17, 2023 6:30:06 GMT -5
The issue with this is that all of the conclusions that any of us have formed about the Novus Ordo, it's validity, along with the status of Paul VI as antipope, for that matter are opinions. They are not yet settled by the Church, so it doesn't have to be a reason to divide us. Just disagree and move on. The problem comes up when a group, bishop, or priests take an opinion they have formed and then seek to bind others to agree. Bishop Williamson, to his credit does not do this. He has all sorts of opinions on many matters, but he never imposes his thinking on anyone, and accepts disagreement on anything unsettled. As I stated above, I disagree with him on many points, but none on matters of doctrine. He's a Catholic, who in my opinion, has incorrectly concluded some wrong opinions on unsettled matters. By and large, the sedevacantist groups, bishops, and priests, in my opinion, get many things right, but not everything. The things they are getting wrong, at least quite a few of them, are far more dangerous, as they are errors against doctrine itself, or in some cases are opinions that lead to schism, than anything said by Bishop Williamson on unsettled matters. The other problem, and this is found much more with sedevacantist groups is that when they opine on things, they expect adherence from Catholics who attend their chapels and in some cases force adherence. This controversy over Novus Ordo attendance by Catholics who cannot get to a Traditional mass has been ongoing since the crisis began. It's nothing new really, and I have known good priests who have held the same position as Bishop Williamson on this. Archbishop Lefebvre himself held different positions on this matter. Our moral certainty on unsettled matters never binds another into agreement. Once one adopts the sedevacantist opinion, and has moral certainty that Paul VI was not a pope, it's much easier to then see that since the Novus Ordo was not approved by a pope, it's not from the Church, and is then open to all sorts of danger up to and including invalidity. We then see why we must avoid this rite, but at the same time, we must remain in communion with other Catholics who disagree on this unsettled matter. Bishop Williamson, along with most priests in the SSPX and all "resistance" bishops and priests, at least as far as I am aware, do not hold the sedevacantist position, so logically one can see why they wouldn't have a problem in principle with the Novus Ordo as a rite, and may tell Catholics who otherwise would get no mass at all to go. When I go to SSPX, for example, I know this all in advance, as any other who holds the sedevacantist position will as well. I can remember many times at the SSPX, when in mass announcements or in the sermon, that John Paul or Benedict XVI was mentioned or quoted (interestingly enough Francis never seems to get any mention as the others did), or the fasting laws of the 1983 Code are described, for example, and I just tune it out, as I understand why they say what they do and I politely disagree. After all, it's unsettled, and neither Bishop Williamson or the SSPX bishops, in word or in practice, pretend they have jurisdiction to bind us on any of this anyway. Pacelli, do you have any sources to recommend on this question of differences of opinion and only those who have reached moral certainty on these questions being bound by the conclusion? It makes sense to me and I have been repeating it, but it has occurred to me that I should have some authority to cite. This is a good question and is big topic on its own, so I will start a new thread on this later today.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 17, 2023 13:14:14 GMT -5
On the question of +Williamson, he has said some wacky things. For example: 1) He promotes Garabandal. 2) He promotes Maria Valtorta's 'Poem of the Man-God', which was placed on the index. 3) He has advised some people that it would be alright to go to the new Mass when asked. Though this would not deter me from approaching him for the Sacraments, and I do appreciate Pacelli's points about unsettled matters of opinion, I believe the apparitions at Garabandal were censured by the local bishop and Valtorta's work was put on the index. Those two do not seem to be in the realm of opinion to me. I also think that +Williamson may have become a bit senile as he is nowhere near as lucid as his talks given in the '90s which one can find on YouTube. There is also a priest living at Broadstairs with +Williamson who was prevented from functioning as a priest publicly before he left the SSPX. I have acquaintances who have spoken to this priest who admitted to them that he shouldn't be acting publicly as a priest, but he is actually on a small Mass circuit. Why +Williamson would have such a man doing that baffles me. Again, I would go to Broadstairs myself if necessary, and I have done, but I would not take any children. The accusations are not particularly severe compared to some things that one hears, but they are enough that this priest should be in seclusion, not on a Mass circuit. I agree with you that he has said some wacky things, and I am not going to defend him for these things, as I said above, that I do not agree with him on some things, and you highlighted some of them. I will make a few comments to keep things in perspective though: 1. Regarding Garabandal, the Church has not prohibited Catholics from believing in this, and there is no contradiction in regards to its message and the Faith. It seems to me that the apparition is discredited anyway, as the blind man who was prophesied to regain his sight on the day of the "great miracle," which has yet to happen, has died. How does that square with the prophesy? 2. Regarding the Poem of the Man God, I think his view on this is terrible. I posted the decree and explanation of the Holy Office on this a while back, linked HERE. I have read on this matter, and the promoters of Valtorta's book have a strange theory that Pope Pius XII directly authorized and ordered the book to be published. This idea has never been proven, and I as someone who has studied Pius XII can say that I highly doubt this to the case. Pius XII, in my opinion, would never have sidestepped the Curia, and he governed in such as way that kept the machinery of the Vatican running and functioning as it should, and would never, in my opinion, would have used his power as pope to just approve a book, without having it examined according to the procedure of having all books examined by the learned priests assigned for this task. I have also read a defense that the Holy Office reversed the decision against the book in 1962. I have never seen any proof of this. They also claim that the Holy Office was mistaken on the claims made about the book. With that said, there is obviously some confusion on this matter, and as we have no authority to clarify all of this, I think that +Williamson and other Valtorta supporters, such as Fr. Robinson of the SSPX, at least have a plausible defense, even though I very strongly disagree, and I am certain they are wrong. The safe course in times such as these would be to just find other books to read. It's not as though we have any shortage of books available to us in these times. If the visions of the times of Our Lord are helpful to anyone, why not read the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich or Mary of Agreda that have the imprimatur and do not have all these problems? It seems obvious to me. You can read Fr. Robinson's defense of Valtorta's "Poem" HERE3. Regarding his advising Catholics that they could go to the Novus Ordo, read my comments above. Again, I disagree with him, but as stated above, he's hardly alone in this view, and it's not settled by the Church. In all three points you brought up, +Williamson gives advice and opinions, not commands. In my opinion, he knows his ideas are on the fringe and I don't think he expects everyone or maybe even most to agree. I remember decades ago when Bishop Williamson came out hitting hard against the movie, "The Sound of Music," and I had friends that were solid Williamson supporters that took it that they could never watch the movie and spoke out against it as well due to the bishop's ideas. As with everything else that +Williamson says, he never bound anyone to this, he just put out in the public realm his ideas, but of course people hear what they want to hear, and many times take an opinion as a fact. The controversy he stirred up about this movie was a big deal back in the day, but like everything else he comes up with, it's not as though he ever denies the Faith, or pretends his opinion settles the matter. He, in my opinion, is a creative thinker, coming up with stuff like this, but none of his ideas are against the Faith, and he never orders Catholics under some pretended notion of a claim to the apostolic succession , that they must obey him and do what he says. Regarding the priest at Broadstairs, I don't know the details of the case, or why +Williamson has judged that this is not an issue as to allowing him to staff his mass circuit. I do not know the allegations against the priest either. Perhaps there is more to the case than meets the eye, and the bishop may have in his judgment been convinced that the priest is not a threat to anyone based on knowledge that's not publicly known, and there may have been conditions put upon the priest as a safeguard as well.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 17, 2023 16:52:08 GMT -5
|
|