Monday, October 10, 2016

The Dr. Seuss Of Ecclesiology



 Bishop Richard Williamson has become a joke. He's been a joke for some time now, and it just keeps getting worse. His "St. Marcel Initiative" (a version of the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] with no desire for union with Modernist Rome) formerly referred to as the "Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance" continues to attack the sedevacantist position, even as they attack the SSPX as being "too soft" on Francis. He's "re-excommunicated" from the Vatican II sect after having consecrated two bishops for his "Initiative" in 2015 and 2016. Each Saturday, the baffled bishop sends out his "Eleison Comments" via e-mail, ostensibly to convince everyone that only his organization has the post-Vatican II situation properly figured out, and to warn people to stay away from sedevacantism.

 He begins almost every issue of his "Comments" with some kindergarten-like rhyme. A small sampling should suffice:

  • The sacrificial Mass once thrown away, How could poor Catholics not go astray?
  • Truth which is true excludes all contradiction. "Truth" which admits of error, is truth-fiction.
  • While Menzingen is by Rome’s sirens charmed, To keep the Faith, let forewarned be forearmed
. Shakespeare he's not, but you would expect that an educated man who was a close confidant of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre to understand basic Catholic theology and present a good argument. Such is not the case. During his last attack on sedevacantism, he's long on poetry and short on theology. You will look in vain for any citation to an approved theologian. In typical Feeneyite fashion, he will cite to a decree, and then give his interpretation instead of what the Church has always understood it to mean.

Bp. Williamson Reinterprets the First Vatican Council

 He begins his "Comments" of 9/17/2016 with the title, "Church's Infallibility." (Emphasis in original) Then the following rhyme, "Conciliar Popes I have to 'disobey,'  But that they are not Popes, I need not say." Bp. Williamson arrives at the correct conclusion; that the post-Vatican II "popes" are EITHER really popes and must be obeyed OR they are not popes and are owed no obedience.  Unfortunately, he proceeds to deny that this is the theologically (and logically) correct decision to be made. He cites the First Vatican Council (1870):

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra , that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, 1 by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he 2 defines 3 a doctrine regarding faith or morals 4 to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." — Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv. (Emphasis in original). 

The bishop goes on to explain that these are the four requirements for an infallible decision. He emphasizes that the fourth so-called requirement of infallibility coming from the Church, means that the pope must "plug in" the requirements to be infallible. He analogizes to a housewife who must plug in her iron to an electric power source or it does't work. His conclusion: If the pope doesn't "engage the four conditions" he can say what he likes without harming the infallibility of the Church. 

Bp. Williamson is correct insofar as a "pope" who teaches heresy is no pope and so no harm can come to the Church in that sense. On everything else, he's completely wrong.

The Teaching of the Church

 According to theologian Tanquerey, "The conditions, all of which must be present at the same time in order that the Pontiff's judgement may be infallible are:

a. The Roman Pontiff may not be speaking as a private doctor, nor as bishop of the city of Rome, nor as a prince of a state, but as the Pastor and Doctor of the universal Church according to his supreme authority;

b. The Roman Pontiff should be teaching a truth of faith or morals;

c. The Roman Pontiff must be defining, that is, he must be determining with finality which doctrine must be held with internal faith;

d. The definition must bind the universal Church" (See Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, 1: 128-129).

The fourth requirement is to "bind the universal Church." It does not mean that the pope can teach heresy, and as long as he does not attempt an infallible definition, all is well. That the Church is infallible means this:

"...the Church can neither deceive or be deceived in matters of faith and morals. It is a prerogative of the whole Church; but it belongs in one way to those who fulfill the office the office of teaching, and another way to those who are taught. Hence, the distinction between active infallibility, by which the Church's rulers are rendered immune from error when they teach; and passive infallibility, by which all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs." (See theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, 2: 102). 

You will notice nothing about housewives, toasters, or "plugging things in" to the Church. Bp. Williamson has distorted this beyond recognition. The Church's teaching office cannot teach error, and the faithful can be secure in their beliefs. If error is taught, it cannot have come from the Church. That pope must have lost ecclesiastical office by the profession of heresy. 

The Extent of Infallibility

Theologian Van Noort assures us that the secondary objects of infallibility include: 1. theological conclusions, 2. dogmatic facts, 3. the general discipline of the Church, 4. approval of religious orders, and 5. canonization of saints. Let's look at just two of these secondary objects of infallibility, and see if Bp. Williamson would go along with being obedient, as a Traditionalist Catholic must. 

The General Discipline of the Church

"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115; Emphasis in original)

 "When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgement: 1.'This law squares with with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals;' that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune. This is a decree of practical judgement." (See Van Noort, 2: 115). 

So, Bp. Williamson, the Vatican II sect and their "popes" all of whom you accept as legitimate have infallibly imposed a "New Order of Mass" and a new order in all the sacraments. Why do you reject them?

Canonization of Saints

Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a great humanitarian, but also was a heretic who believed in  ecumenism and participated in false worship. (See my post of 9/12/16, "Putting Unity Before Truth" for more on Mother Teresa). Francis proclaimed the following,

 "For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed Teresa of Calcutta be [a] saint and we enroll her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

That's infallible if he's pope. The Church doesn't want us venerating the damned, we need to be sure they are both in Heaven and worthy of emulation.

Bp. Williamson, even if Mother Teresa was saved, do you believe her acts of public false worship and apostasy from the Catholic faith make her worthy of emulation and veneration by all the faithful? Will you pray to her, and offer Mass in her honor?

Conclusion: You Can't "Recognize and Resist" Infallible Decisions 

  According to theologians McHugh and Callan:

"Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:



  • Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.
  • Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 
  • The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology 1: 542-543)


 It's clear that Bp. Williamson rejects decisions of the post-Vatican II "popes" that Catholic theology demands we regard as infallible. They were promulgated in their official capacity as "pope." You must either submit or be outside the Church. As a matter of fact, since these decisions are the objects of infallibility, you would be a heretic, not merely in schism. The only alternative is that, as all the pre-Vatican II theologians taught, these men professed heresy in their personal capacity and fell from office by Divine Law.

Bp. Williamson wants to make himself sound "reasonable" and not "extreme." The sedevacantist position is logical and only "extreme" when you don't understand theology. His next "Comments" should begin:

"Theology I understand not, with me don't throw in your lot.
A good argument I cannot make; listen to me not for Heaven's sake!" 

100 comments:

  1. He begins almost every issue of his "Comments" with some kindergarten-like rhyme.

    Do you recognise metre and style of

    Jesus is condemned to die:
    God, through sin, I crucify.

    or do you not?

    That was station one in stations of the cross in My Sunday Missal.

    It was not reserved for children in kindergarten age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. However, I met Bp. Williamson in 1985, when he was still a priest, and he thought he could "improve" on just about anything. I don't think we will be reading "The Anti-Sedevacantist Stations of the Cross" anytime soon!

      Williamson's ego, large it be,
      Cannot improve spiritual classics, wait and see!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I think your metre is less rythmic than his.

      And I think your assessment of his person is invidious, writing things in metre is NOT having a "large ego", and the Stations of the Cross are an example of how your stance about is was "proving too much".

      Delete
    3. There is nothing unjust about my assessment of Bp Williamson. Holding contradictory views and passing them off as Catholicism is absurd. Anyone with an ounce of sanity would abandon such a stance (or at the very least TRY to cite an authority for your position as opposed to making rhymes). And, yes, Williamson has such an ego no one can tell him anything, from his former superior Bp. Fellay, to the man he calls "pope."

      If my my blog you do not like
      Feel free not to come to this site

      I guess I'm a poet
      But just didn't know it
      My feet do show it--
      They're long-fellows!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. If thy post I didn't like
      I hope for better next time on site.

      I think situation is so muddled with so many false clues and side issues that at least for "the moment" (one which can last a few years) does NOT mean anything like insanity.

      Delete
    5. Denying (at least in practice) the Law of Non-Contradiction is not rational (to say the least).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Excepting when one is not per se denying it, but considering the situation very muddled and not yet sure which of two incompatibles (when such!) is the false one.

      Delete
    7. It's more than "muddled" when you have a "pope" that participated actively in false worship, tells us there is no Catholic God, and proselytizing is nonsense. To even consider such a man "Catholic" (let alone "pope") is to deny the obvious.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. That is one incompatible, and I think the true one.

      Some make efforts - misguided, but not certain evidence of apostasy - of making it out as an apparent one.

      Delete
  2. Bishop Williamson also believes in "novus ordo Eucharistic miracles"
    What's the point in "resisting" if God is present and allows miracles to happen in the novus ordo???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no use, of course, but unfortunately that will not stop the bishop from holding inconsistent positions!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. If we have a man as "Pope" who has a heretic view of validities of matrimony, we don't need all novus ordo masses to be invalid to have a right to resist. And a duty.

      It's sufficient if papacies and "magisterium" is.

      We are not allowed to go to Mass with Jacobite Copts or with Syrian Nestorians. Yet, presumably, at least for Copts the masses are valid.

      Delete
    3. Wrong, George. Re-read what I wrote above. We have a "pope" who proclaims an ecumenist a "Saint" (more than one), and upholds all the heresies of Vatican II. If the men claiming to be pope were truly pope, your duty is to OBEY because there is nothing to resist. The Holy Ghost does not permit a pope to teach error. This means they must have either fallen from office due to profession of heresy, or never attained the office for the same reason.

      What does the validity of Mass have to do with anything? The Eastern heretical sects have valid Masses, but a Traditionalist cannot attend this false worship. Outside the Church, no salvation, and having a valid Mass outside the Church does nothing to save your soul.

      "Hans Georg Lundahl" isn't the pseudonym for "Richard Williamson" I hope.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. No.

      I differ from him, insofar as he is a great fan of 1984, I am not. Specifically, I am a geocentric and he seems fond of quoting the passage in which geocentrism is heavily strawmanned.

      "If the men claiming to be pope were truly pope, your duty is to OBEY because there is nothing to resist."

      And if HIS papacy is invalid, then he is not Pope and we are bound to resist him even if his Masses are valid. As we should for instance resist the teachings derogatory to the Catholic faith given by a Jacobite non-Uniate Copt, who, nevertheless, is celebrating valid Masses.

      "What does the validity of Mass have to do with anything? The Eastern heretical sects have valid Masses, but a Traditionalist cannot attend this false worship."

      That would precisely be the point of Novus Ordo Masses being sometimes at least valid, but still illicit. Because the rule of worship has changed.

      Thank you for vindicating Mgr Williamson and myself, who came to the conclusion before I heard of his doing so.

      Delete
    5. If his papacy is invalid there's nothing to resist. I don't "resist" the Archlayman of Canterbury.

      You are far from "vindicated." Williamson is on record saying the Novus Bogus can be attended if it "nourishes your faith." Some "resistance"-- just more contradiction. The Novus Bogus is NEVER valid, as the words of Consecration, even if correct and pronounced by a (ever increasingly rare) validly ordained priest, is recited as an "Institution Narrative" which shows a lack of intent to act "in persona Christi"---according to theologians such as O'Connell. This makes such (rare) "Masses" dubious at best. They certainly don't "nourish" the Truth faith by any means. You've proven my point rather well. Williamson is a self-contradictory joke who doesn't have a clue and keeps people "recognizing" a false pope.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. I read somewhere (Wikipedia perhaps) that Rosicrucians like to educate with rhymes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know much about the Rosicrucians, but nothing about Richard Williamson would surprise me. My focus is on his theology, not his inane rhymes!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I think the Rosicrucians also believe 2+2=4.

      Delete
    3. Granted, educating in rhymes by itself doth not a Rosicrucian make. My point stands. If the person who made the comment has additional info about Bp. Williamson that would make them suspect he belongs to the Rosicrucians, please let us know.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. My comment?

      I have heard of suspicions, and I think them unjust. Rosicrucians may like Tolkien, but liking Tolkien also doth not a Rosicrucian make.

      I am a blogger who in Paris was targetted by suspicion of being for instance Rosicrucian, because I am a fan of Tolkien and do like Mgr Williamson. At least an article attacking HIM (who was a better known Tolkien fan than I and presumably still is) was made and attitudes at St Nicolas du Chardonnet were a lot more reserved against me, a few years ago.

      Delete
    5. I asked the person who commented for additional info. I agree that imsinuating that someone may be a Rosicrucian without sufficient evidence is totally unjust, hence my request for info/proof.

      As I stated, my focus is on his theology not his inane rhymes.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. As you saw, commenter was "Anonymous".

      Delete
    7. So am I--the person in question knows who they are and may return to this blog.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Quite seriously. He is a serious problem to the Catholic Resistance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed he is; he makes everyone in opposition to V2 look foolish.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. To give but two examples: He states that a heretic (who is not a member of the Church) can be the Head of the Church. The Novus Bogus is un-Catholic and to be avoided, BUT you can attend if it "nourishes your Faith"

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Correct me if I am wrong.
    I think the author of this article is saying
    "You Bishop Williamson,recognize a man who preaches hersey and a non-catholic church,to be the Pope and the Roman Catholic church.
    Simultaneously,by acknowledging this man and his church,you freely believe and command your flock to believe the "The Pope' and his 'Church' can give,teach,profess,and believe heretical,non Catholic, blasphemous,idolatrous doctrine.
    Nursery ryhmes only add more insanity to your poisonous hertical belief system."
    If I am wrong please correct me.I think the 2 comments above are missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You hit the nail on the head! That is exactly what my post is all about!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Your point would have been clearer by far if you had not tried to attack his sanity and his taste in using rhymes.

      You cluttered a good point of ecclesiology by a bad point in judgement of a person. Or two, perhaps.

      Delete
    3. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. From strange ideas on new visions and apparitions, to Novus Bogus "Eucharistic miracles" which come from a service that is "un-Catholic" yet "can nourish our Faith," Williamson is a house divided against himself.

      Holding incompatible views with nothing more to back it up but his own "ipse dixit" strains the boundaries of sanity.

      I think your comment is totally wonderful. I think your comment is totally awful. Sound logical to you?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. "From strange ideas on new visions and apparitions"

      What exactly is strange about accepting Valtorta?

      "with nothing more to back it up but his own "ipse dixit" strains the boundaries of sanity."

      Want a source for the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires (in the handling of which Bergoglio was involved and where he showed little respect for the miraculous Host)?

      deretour : Ordo Missae of Paul VI per se valid, probably
      http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/ordo-missae-of-paul-vi-per-se-valid.html


      which links to

      TradCats : Miracles Still Happen!
      http://tradcats.blogspot.fr/2009/08/miracles-still-happen.html


      which links to

      Milagro Eucaristico Buenos Aires Argentina
      krouillong7
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs


      I have later done some more research and tried to verify if the priest was ordained under older rite or at least by a bishop consecrated under older rite, so far got no answer.

      I do not think "valid (at least sometimes) but illicit" is holding incompatible views. As it is not about Jacobites either. Meaning excepting Uniates.

      Delete
    5. Valorta had her book placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Holy Office. I could write a whole post on what's wrong, and I might do so at a later time.

      Unfortunately, with no papacy there can be no binding judgement as to whether or not a miracle is genuine. Satan can imitate miracles, and what better way to keep those in the Vatican II sect?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. George..Bishop Williamson encourages worship & submission to the novus ordo anti-popss and their false Sacraments.
      Its no different than Bishop Williamson encouraging his flock to worship at an eastern Orthodox divine liturgy and submitting to one of their patriarchs.
      Simultaneously 2 hours after his flock returns from Divine liturgy,he bashes rejects and condemns the patriarch and his DL as poisonous blasphemous heresy.(hypothetical comparative situation)
      Do you see where he is a walking talking contradiction?
      No one is condemning him rather its very frustrating because he is smart yet plays dumb & is leading good intentioned Catholics on a schizophrenic wild goose chase.

      Delete
    7. "Valorta had her book placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Holy Office."

      Under what Pope or Antipope?

      Delete
    8. In 1949, the Holy Office ordered all copies of the "Poem of the Man-God" to be surrendered and ordered they not be published. In 1959, the Holy Office officially condemned the book and placed it on the Index. Yes, that time it was Roncalli, but the condemnation came from the most orthodox of Churchmen, most notably Cardinal Ottaviani and theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. Ah ... 1949 would have been a move of prudence.

      Cardinal Ottaviani and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange may be orthodox, but in certain ways - and I mean new ones, such as St Thomas would not have agreed on - too suspicious about the charisms.

      Delete
  6. Below is a link to an article regarding Williamson and his dealings with 3 seminarians. Williamson ended up driving 2 of the seminarians to the FSSP and one completely out of the seminary by his "vexing" beliefs.
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/Massachusetts/articles/2009/02/20/
    bishops-vexing-beliefs-have-deep-roots/

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the link above which I posted the last line should read as follows:

    bishops_vexing_beliefs_ have_deep_ roots/

    Sorry about the error.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joann,
    Thank you for the citation! His beliefs are vexing indeed!

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally met one of the Priests mentioned in the above article this summer. I was on vacation and was looking for a Traditional Latin Mass to attend. The Priest does indeed say the Latin Mass but unfortunately I could not attend as he is ordained in the FSSP after his "vexing" dealings with Williamson.

      Delete
    2. What's even worse Joann, is that his ordination in the FSSP was most likely invalid. "Bp." Timlin, who performs most of their so-called ordinations, is not a valid bishop. Furthermore, no one can attend even a valid Mass, if those priests are in actual union with the false pope and his V2 heresies, which the FSSP is, and always has been since its formation in 1988.

      It's a sad state of affairs. Bp Williamson just makes matters worse.

      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. It is sad because the FSSP Priest I met was driven out of the seminary by Williamson's comments about his being of Jewish heritage. He could have been a valid Priest and instead ended up in the FSSP. However, I don't understand why the Priest threw overboard all of the Traditionalists for one bad apple, namely Williamson!

      Delete
    4. I think the answer in this case lies with the rejection of sedevacantism by Williamson (and the SSPX). Think about it. You're being told the Modernist in Rome is the pope, and the Sacraments are valid in the V2 sect. Rome is in error or maybe even heresy, but it is still (so they say) the Roman Catholic Church!

      Now you get a nutty Traditionalist bishop who insults people and has rather strange ideas. Why not be a "Traditionalist priest" in union with Rome? It's only a matter of preference when you really analyze it. Maybe he can "fight on the inside" of the "mainstream Church." Hence, they defect to the FSSP. That's why Williamson's St Marcel Initiative and the SSPX with the "recognize and resist" mentality are so dangerous to souls. Had that seminarian been taught sedevacantism (and learned the Church's teaching about it), he probably wouldn't have gone over to the antipope. He could have joined the CMRI( or later the SSPV), kept the true Faith, and have been a real priest.
      Ideas have consequences!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Your explanation makes so much sense. Thanks!!

      Delete
  9. Here is the powerful exposé on Bishop Williamson in Spanish from 2012.

    https://moimunanblog.com/2012/10/25/quien-es-de-verdad-monsenor-williamson-2/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Es allí donde la fuerza oculta que edificó y aun mantiene el Imperio Británico forma todos los aspectos de la personalidad de sus pupilos, hasta convertirlos en útiles y leales servidores de un proyecto viejo de cinco siglos."

      I think Robert Filmer is hardly very more coherent than Richard Williamson. A bee in the bonnet.

      Delete
    2. I see a kind of jealousy - in a way understandable - for having missed an education more complete than his own.

      "Particular importancia se da a la formación humanística, artística, y filosófica, pues como decía Winston Churchill, 'el día en que los responsables del Imperio ya no sepan latín ni griego, éste habrá llegado a su fin'. Y sabía lo que decía…"

      As if a man had to lack an artistic, humanistic and philosophical formation in order to be honest and not to be a tool to some kind of freemasonry.

      These things are not ways to form a character in its most intimate aspects, these things are occasions for a character to form itself by its tastes, some taking it in evil and some, probably at least as many, in good ways, and most a little bit of both.

      Delete
    3. And on top of it, he thinks that if a man was High Churchman in the place and times of Alec Vidler, he must be suspect of sharing the latter's convictions, most notably it would be absurd to think Muggeridge and Williamson would agree on this position, which C. S. Lewis rightly attacked:

      // In 1958 Vidler published a book called Windsor Sermons. At the time he was Dean of King's College, Cambridge. In one sermon in that book, Vidler had contended of miracles that "the Fourth gospel does not call it a 'miracle' . . . but a 'sign'. It should be read more as a parable than as a miracle." Lewis took issue with this position as a distortion of the natural reading of the text of Scripture. A symposium, held under the title "Soundings," was turned into a book by that title with Vidler editing the book and contributing to it. In Objections to Christian Belief, Vidler wrote of the "striking inconsistencies" in the New Testament writers. //

      Muggeridge, Williamson and C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien could not in a hundred years have come up with a work called, straight face "Objections to Christian Belief". Not sure if they could even have come up (CSL possibly) with a title like "Objections to Christian Belief ... Answered".

      Delete
    4. "Volvemos a encontrar a Malcolm bañando en los secretos de las altas instancias mundialistas, casado con Kathleen Dobbs, sobrina de Beatrice Webb, autora que junto con su esposo Sydney, será una de las divulgadoras del marxismo, en su versión soft fabiana, que procurará introducir en Gran Bretaña por medio de uno de los primeros y más completos sistemas de Seguridad Social, lo que valió a los esposos ser enterrados en la abadía de Westminster, y haber sido recordados, por ejemplo, en el show inaugural de las últimas Olimpiadas de Londres."

      OK, Beatrice and Sidney Webb were Fabians.

      Kathleen Dobbs was cousin of Beatrice Webb.

      Kathleen Dobbs was the wife of Malcolm Muggeridge.

      Therefore Malcolm Muggeridge and Richard Williamson are Fabians ...

      Er ... non-Anglican positions or not-per-se-Anglican ones are not only common but also new and therefore diverging in same families, as English establishment is breaking up its Anglicanism. One becoming a Fabian and one a real Catholic would not be uncommon even among siblings, and even more so with two female cousins marrying different men not related to each other.

      Delete
    5. It seems the reader of their blog took the name "Robert Filmer" after some curious English personage? Unless it is "Filmore" ...

      Delete
  10. Off-Topic: Which Socio-Economic System Based on Catholic Social Teaching do you personally subscribe to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yours is a most interesting question. I wonder what Catholic Social Teaching would be like today if the Great Apostasy had not occurred. We know two things for certain: Socialism and Communism are intrinsically evil.

      Personally, I subscribe to Distributism in light of the teachings of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI. I think a Catholic Constitutional Monarchy would be ideal for our times. These are merely my opinion and nothing more.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Before 1989 West Germany was socialist and had a thriving economy.
      I'm not a socialist by any means but capitalism seems to work well for roughly 5% of the population while the other 95% seem to slowly fade into working poverty built on usury.
      Before 2014 I was a hardcore capitalist.Nowadays I am utterly confused as to what socioeconomic system works best.

      Delete
    3. You're not alone. What I stated above is consonant with Church teaching, but with no pope to lead us, there are no hard and fast answers to many of our questions.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I am Distributist with a modicum of Corporativism.

      Definitely against some of the statist positions of Vatican II. When I converted, I could stomach Lumen Gentium. More recently, being already "sede" in the sense of accepting Pope Michael, I read one document in which school teachers are supposed to be "represantatives of humanity" to their pupils.

      IV Commandment does not say "honour thy teachers, because they represent humanity", if it says anything about honouring teachers it is insofar as they represent the actual parents.

      Delete
  11. Francis while being an antipope is an open communist with Zionist sympathies and a passion for flooding the West with non Catholic non whites.
    I say non whites because NO ONE EVER suggest nor makes laws to flood non white countries with Catholic white families/Men.
    This isn't racist its just the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's an easy enough answer to that statement. There aren't enough Traditionalists of any color to "flood" any country. As to the Vatican 2 sect; their members of whatever color don't really have enough in common to go anywhere, and why would they WANT to leave the U. S. and mostly European countries to go to backwards nations populated by angry infidels and/or pagans?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I'm saying Politicians never pass laws to keep refugees in their respective regions or keep them near their 3rd world homes.
      The politicians make sure to create civil wars,mass war,starvation,dehydration,etc...then flood civilized former Catholic white nations with said refugees who have zero intention of acclimating to their new found home.
      Plus the politicians make sure the new 'refugees' receive welfare while the host population works likes slaves.
      Not only that,the Law allows 'refugees' to fight,rape,steal,create riots,etc..with a guarantee of no punishment or jail time.
      Its noticeable how Israel,UAE,Saudi Arabia,Qatar, etc..never have to take in,house,feed,clothe,and provide medical attention for these 'refugees'.

      Delete
  12. You said Bp Williamson has "nutty" beliefs. His contradictory positions on the Novus Ordo aside, are you also alluding to his stated beliefs on the Jews (holocaust) and 911?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't even need to go there. How about his railing against "The Sound of Music" as evil? How about his belief that woman are inferior to men? How about claiming women who wear pants (even elderly women in their 80s who do it for medical reasons) are somehow sinful? This qualifies him as "nutty" as far as I'm concerned.

    ---Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Introibo, Do you believe the Nazis exterminated Jews in gas chambers? And do you believe the official story of 911?

      Delete
    2. To the first question; yes. To the second; I don't believe all of the official story--there are some holes in that story to be sure.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. On the first question, I counsel some caution as to technical enquiries.

      Also, I would like Catholics to widely take up reading of "holocaust mémoires", books like this one:

      Maurice Cling :

      Vous qui entrez ici... Un enfant à Auschwitz, Graphein et FNDIRP, 1999
      Un enfant à Auschwitz, préface de Yannis Thanassekos, Éditions de l'Atelier, 2008

      I read it, and Maurice while there heard rumours, but didn't see a single gassing or cremation.

      Or Jo Wajsblat, Gilles Lambert, Le témoin imprévu, Florent Massot, 2002, réédition J’ai Lu, 2002

      650 boys are divided in 13 groups, he is in the thirteenth, walks with 49 other boys to a gaschamber, Doctor Mengele gets furious and they are all thrown out - ungassed, but believing the 12 "earlier" groups had all been gassed.

      I think there may have been snuff movies in this connection, but I think there was also a lot of Spiel in order to make the captives easier to manipulate through fear.

      Here is by the way a list of witness books:

      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_r%C3%A9cits_de_rescap%C3%A9s_de_la_Shoah

      Of these, La Nuit by Wiesel has been attacked as grossly exaggerated and including falsehoods, people thrown alive into crematory fires. I think he may have been honest and that may have been a snuff movie.

      Delete
    4. From now on don't ask or answer questions about WW2 "gas chambers"... There are many groups frothing at the mouth and anxiously awaiting to entrap someone or group into a hate speech law suit.

      Delete
    5. As I live in France, I could be targetted.

      However "don't ask or answer questions" are not exactly my tactics.

      Delete
    6. I understand your anxiety. Even in the USA where "hate speech" is not criminalized (yet), I don't think a huge persecution is far behind.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Quite a few of his fans are also such of Sound of Music.

    Btw, the Musical is different from the real autobiography of Maria von Trapp, which he admires.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you listen to Bishop W from the 80's & 90's,he sounds much more focused coherent and consistent.
    I could be wrong but my take is his brain has been rattled by having to defend the inconsistent,schizophrenic,"Recognize & Resist" ideology.
    I don't disrespect him and would trust his advice over the millions of novus ordo types.He isn't stupid and to this day still has interesting observations to offer.
    All one can do is pray he embraces the sedevacantist position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make some very valid points. I think his biggest problem is his ego. He seems incapable of admitting error, and therefore has to defend the inconsistent "R&R" with more and more absurd statements. I agree we all must pray that he will see the "Wolf in Peter's clothing" and become sedevacantist.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. He would have to admit Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong in order to embrace sedevacantism.

      Delete
  16. Introibo -
    Are Priests ordained by Bishop Williamson valid?
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Yes. He was ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop in the Traditional Rites of the Church by Abp. Lefebvre. Bp. Williamson continues to use the Sacraments as they were in 1962, when everything was unquestionably valid.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  17. Introibo -
    From what little I know of Bishop Williamson he makes no sense to me and makes my head spin with his insistence that Francis is Pope. However, I know a traditionalist couple who want me to attend a church in York, Pa with them on Sunday. I have been researching the church and it seems that the Priest may have been ordained by Bishop Williamson. The Priest also was excommunicated for not saying the Norvus Ordo Mass, but writes all kinds of letters, which are on their website, trying to get the excommunication lifted. I have become overwhelmed trying to sift through what kind of church this is. If you have a minute would you mind looking up their website and tell me what you think. The website is: saintspeterandpaulrcm.com. The website doesn't specify SSPX, etc. I came across Bishop Williamson's name only in their bulletin.
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      I have looked at their website. It is the "recognize and resist " nonsense. They acknowledge Frankie as "pope" aa well as the "bishop" of the V2 diocese.

      They claim their priest was "laicized" which is not the same as being excommunicated and it is confusing and troubling to me. They claim this priest was ordained in the "received and approved" rites of the Church by a bishop likewise ordained and consecrated in the "received and approved" rites, yet they don't name either the bishop or the priest. That is a huge red flag to me.

      A Traditionalist priest should never hesitate to name his ordaining Bishop. It was not Bp. Williamson because Williamson was never a part of the V2 Church since he entered the SSPX seminary in the early 1970s.

      My take: It is strange, suspicious and not sedevacantist. I would urge you not to go when you're blest to have access to the SSPV. Invite your friends to come with you and leave Bergoglio behind.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Joann,
      Upon further investigation, it is run by "Fr" Samuel Waters, ordained in the invalid new rite in 1982 by "Cardinal" Krol ---a valid bishop. Since the new rite was used Waters is just a layman! I thought as much when they wrote "received and approved" as opposed to Traditional rites.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  18. Introibo -
    Thanks a bunch!! I was getting so overwhelmed and perplexed trying to sift through their website. Nothing seemed straightforward. The problem I am having is the traditional couple I know won't go to the SSPV as they were asked by a Priest about the Thuc Bishops and were refused communion as a result of their belief. So they are looking for somewhere else to go. I know I definitely won't be visiting the church in York with them. (I don't understand how a Priest can refuse communion to someone because of their stance on the Thuc Bishops)??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SSPV is wrong in so doing. It is an unfortunate spot on their overall record of excellence. They claim that the Thuc line of bishops are "doubtful." They are the ONLY Traditionalists that still hold to that discredited stance. Even Bp. Williamson now recognizes their clergy as valid, but denounces them for sedevacantism.

      Do you know which SSPV priest asked and why? They usually never ask unless the person brings it up or goes to a CMRI chapel.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's terrible. Fr. Jenkins thinks he's doing the right thing, but he refuses to reconsider the Thuc question. He is adamant because Fr Cekada and Bp Dolan are right near his main Church (Immaculate Conception) in Ohio. This is the sad result when you have no pope. So many victims of Vatican 2.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The Priest I thought was the one who denied communion was not the one. Nevertheless, I am not going there.

      Delete
    3. Stick with SSPV but avoid a particular priest if you feel uncomfortable!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as you don't attend CMRI you're ok with Fr Jenkins. It doesn't make him a "cult." That word is bandied about by those under the influence (realized or not) of the post-V2 world where they give "communion" to adulterers, practicing sodomites, abortion-promoting politicians, etc. The SSPV rightfully deny Communion to Fenneyites and V2 sect members. However, they are so very wrong on the Thuc issue. Tragically wrong.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. "The SSPV rightfully deny Communion to Fenneyites and V2 sect members."

      This would mean if you chose between extant claimants, you would, like me, prefer Pope Michael over claimants Alejandro IX and Boniface X? These being Feeneyites (and Alejandro has pretended to canonise Leonard Feeney, which I could stomach, but then also dogmatise his position).

      Delete
  21. Thanks so much for all of your guidance and insight!! I don't know much about the Thuc issue, but I guess I will have to try to delve into it. Sometimes I get overwhelmed trying to learn too much. There is just so much rubbish out there since Vatican II to sort through. That is why websites like yours and Novus Ordo Watch are so invaluable!! Thanks again for all the work you do!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Replies
    1. That is the correct web address.

      Many thanks!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  23. I was refused Sacraments at an SSPV chapel 3 months ago because our priest is Thuc line.(Bishop Mckenna line)
    In defense of the SSPV,these disagreements will continue until we have a Roman Catholic Pope.
    Funny thing is our priest does EVERYTHING pre-1950,including after midnight Holy Communion fast and Saturday morning Easter Vigil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad. I agree that it is the state of sedevacantism that prevents solutions by which all must abide. However, the SSPV is not operating on sound theological principles on this issue. Bp. Kelly will not admit his error. Could you say who the SSPV priest was and how he knew you went to that Traditionalist Thuc-line priest?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. For his safety I will not say his name.
      I told him I went to a Thuc priest.
      He said 'Long as you know the rules,you can assist at holy mass but you can't receive Sacraments."
      I understand the Thuc line is valid but this priest is simply following orders.Its a shame hopefully the SSPV will change soon.

      Delete
  24. Introibo,
    In my research of the Thuc lineage, I have come across the following letter several times. It is entitled: The "Mendez- Kelly Affair" by Fr. Daniel Sanborn, dated April, 1995. www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html. Are you aware of this letter? If you ask me it is "the pot calling the kettle black"!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One word of caution Joann. That letter (of which I am well aware) contains several factual mistakes about Bp. Mendez! Fr. Cekada has since repudiated that letter. I asked Fr Cekada if he now believed Bp Kelly to be unquestionably validly consecrated (in circa 2005); he replied in the affirmative.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Bp. Sanborn wrote the letter with Fr Cekada's help in research.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. That letter is from years ago.Everyone in the Thuc line (for the most part) accepts Bishop Kelly's holy orders.
      I just wish the SSPV would drop the issue involving the Thuc line.

      Delete